Sussex wrote:
My (limited) understanding of the Reading issue is that by being seen on the app, they are in fact advertising themselves for hire. As they don't have a license to operate in Reading then they could be viewed as operating (i.e. the 1976 definition making provisions for the invitation or acceptance of bookings) without a license for that area.
Sounds a bit contrived, that one. I mean, it's perfectly acceptable for a firm to advertise in and accept bookings from one area but operate via another area as long as the three licences match? And that's always been the case, even before the Deregulation Act?
So if the app regarded simply as a form of advertising then I can't see the problem.
Quote:
An alternative view is that by advertising a car for hire they are in fact plying for hire as they don't have a license to do anything in Reading, akin to the prostitute scenario in the Eastbourne case
Ah, yes, the 'virtual' plying for hire thing.
Remember Boris Johnson writing an article about it a couple of years ago:
"You only have to consider the habits of many Uber minicabs – not all, but many – to see that this law is systematically broken; and that is because technology makes it so easy for it to be broken.
"You no longer need to see a vehicle to hail it. Your phone will see it for you. It will see round corners; it will see in the dark. You no longer need to hail a taxi by sticking your arm out or shouting; you just press a button and within minutes – seconds – the car will be at your side. The car can be parked up at a petrol station, or down a side street, or just dawdling in traffic, and – ping – it will be there. In other words the app is allowing private hire vehicles to behave like black taxis: to be hailed, to ply for hire in the streets, to do exactly what the law says they are not supposed to do. You have the instant (or virtually instant) accessibility of the black cab, with none of the extra costs entailed by the vehicle regulations or the Knowledge, and the growth of the business is huge."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/u ... rules.htmlWhich begs the question, if the law is being broken so obviously and systematically, why didn't TfL prosecute drivers?
Suspect the reason is that it's not quite as clear cut as Boris tried to make it sound.
For what it's worth, can't see how a car invisible to potential hirers could be deemed plying for hire. And even pre-Uber, it's always been acceptable to phone an office and book a PHV that's visible to the passenger? And what about walk up fares to offices with cars sitting outside?
Think this 'virtual plying' is a bit far fetched as well. The app is just a hyper-efficient way of processing a booking. Of course, that's not to say that Uber cars can't be deemed plying for hire, but that's surely down to age old criteria like visibility and context, and nothing to do with the app.
Maybe Reading Council just trying to be a bit creative to ward off Uber? For example, one of the reasons they knocked back Uber's operating license was because of "insufficient evidence as to the demand for the service in Reading"? Eh? Might work for HCs, but doubt if it would withstand a legal challenge regarding PH operation...