Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:58 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 46177
Location: 1066 Country
I think a person can apply on behalf of a firm.

A common example is when a group of directors sign the application form, but the name on the form is a company rather than a person(s).

I think that's where Uber messed up by just having one person on the license.

Especially in a firm with such a busy revolving door employment record.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 46177
Location: 1066 Country
StuartW wrote:
As far as Sheffield is concerned I suspect all this stuff about only a named individual being allowed to apply for an operator's licence is wrong and a red herring as far as the dispute with Uber is concerned.

Of course, there will be named individuals involved in the application who will be responsible for the conduct of the operator, but legally the operator will be the company Uber Britannia Limited, not any particular individual.

I'm not sure I agree with that 100%.

I think the Jo Bertrum not working for them anymore is a genuine reason not to issue the license, as it appears she was the only signatory. I'm not sure legally the council can issue the license to anyone else without her agreeing to it.

Similar to the trading of a plate, without the old proprietor saying so a council can't transfer the license, or add anyone else to it.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 6230
Sussex wrote:
Similar to the trading of a plate, without the old proprietor saying so a council can't transfer the license, or add anyone else to it.


Not sure the plate analogy is the best one.

As far as I can make out, in the Sheffield case the licensee would have remained the same, ie Uber Britannia Limited (in a plate transfer scenario the licensee would change).

Of course, the people employed by the licensee can change, but that doesn't mean the licensee will change - it's still Uber Britannia Limited. A company is a legal entity distinct from the directors working for it, who can come and go without affecting the status of the company, and thus without affecting its status as the licensee.

I suspect that normally if the directors changed then an operator's licence would continue to be valid, and the council would just need to be informed of the change of directors, and obviously the new directors would have to be fit and proper etc.

Not sure if in this case Jo Betram would really need to be involved. The change of the company's directors is more the domain of company law rather than licensing.

At a rough guess I suspect that it's all basically an administrative cock up - Uber failed to change the company's directors when Jo Bertram left, as required by company law. And/or they failed to inform Sheffield City Council of the change of directors, hence the current scenario.

If the correct procedures had been followed then there wouldn't have been a problem.

And while it's not entirely clear from what's reported, it may have been that Jo Bertram was the company's only director, which of course increases the possibility that a procedural error will fall foul of both company law and the licensing requirements.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 18348
Sussex wrote:
StuartW wrote:
As far as Sheffield is concerned I suspect all this stuff about only a named individual being allowed to apply for an operator's licence is wrong and a red herring as far as the dispute with Uber is concerned.

Of course, there will be named individuals involved in the application who will be responsible for the conduct of the operator, but legally the operator will be the company Uber Britannia Limited, not any particular individual.

I'm not sure I agree with that 100%.

I think the Jo Bertrum not working for them anymore is a genuine reason not to issue the license, as it appears she was the only signatory. I'm not sure legally the council can issue the license to anyone else without her agreeing to it.

Similar to the trading of a plate, without the old proprietor saying so a council can't transfer the license, or add anyone else to it.

What about if the named person on the license dies suddenly? Does the firm have to cease trading until a new license is granted?

_________________
Grandad,
old fart with no heart


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:57 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm
Posts: 2004
StuartW wrote:
Sussex wrote:
Similar to the trading of a plate, without the old proprietor saying so a council can't transfer the license, or add anyone else to it.


Not sure the plate analogy is the best one.

As far as I can make out, in the Sheffield case the licensee would have remained the same, ie Uber Britannia Limited (in a plate transfer scenario the licensee would change).

Of course, the people employed by the licensee can change, but that doesn't mean the licensee will change - it's still Uber Britannia Limited. A company is a legal entity distinct from the directors working for it, who can come and go without affecting the status of the company, and thus without affecting its status as the licensee.

I suspect that normally if the directors changed then an operator's licence would continue to be valid, and the council would just need to be informed of the change of directors, and obviously the new directors would have to be fit and proper etc.

Not sure if in this case Jo Betram would really need to be involved. The change of the company's directors is more the domain of company law rather than licensing.

There has to be a named person on the operators license normally that would be the person who is company secretary,you cannot transfer a private hire operators license,it would have to be a fresh application.

At a rough guess I suspect that it's all basically an administrative cock up - Uber failed to change the company's directors when Jo Bertram left, as required by company law. And/or they failed to inform Sheffield City Council of the change of directors, hence the current scenario.

If the correct procedures had been followed then there wouldn't have been a problem.

And while it's not entirely clear from what's reported, it may have been that Jo Bertram was the company's only director, which of course increases the possibility that a procedural error will fall foul of both company law and the licensing requirements.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 6230
heathcote wrote:
There has to be a named person on the operators license normally that would be the person who is company secretary,you cannot transfer a private hire operators license,it would have to be a fresh application.


But where's the license transfer? There's none - the operator/licence holder is the company, and the company continues even though the directors or company secretary change.

Of course, the council needs a point of contact and responsible person who's held responsible for the operation of the licence, ie would normally be the company secretary and/or directors. But I can't see how they can't change without requiring a new licence, any more than if new PHVs start working with the operator or some leave then another licence is needed - it's not, and all the operator has to do is inform the council of any new PHVs or any departing.

Seems to me like a vehicle proprietor's licence - if you change the vehicle then you don't need a new licence. The old licence is ongoing and all that's required is to change the vehicle details on the licence. Ditto directors and an operator's licence granted to a company.

Just like a new vehicle on a licence has to pass an inspection, a new director for a company acting as a private hire operator has to be fit and proper. But the licence is ongoing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 46177
Location: 1066 Country
StuartW wrote:
As far as I can make out, in the Sheffield case the licensee would have remained the same, ie Uber Britannia Limited (in a plate transfer scenario the licensee would change).

The operator license can be in the name of whoever, but if only one person is listed on the application form, and that person is the only person who signs it, then that license belongs to them.

That's, in my view, the way the act reads, and for good reason. It's the person who signs the form that is viewed as being fit and proper, or not as the case maybe. Not the firm.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 46177
Location: 1066 Country
StuartW wrote:
Of course, the people employed by the licensee can change, but that doesn't mean the licensee will change - it's still Uber Britannia Limited. A company is a legal entity distinct from the directors working for it, who can come and go without affecting the status of the company, and thus without affecting its status as the licensee.

I suspect that normally if the directors changed then an operator's licence would continue to be valid, and the council would just need to be informed of the change of directors, and obviously the new directors would have to be fit and proper etc.

Not sure if in this case Jo Betram would really need to be involved. The change of the company's directors is more the domain of company law rather than licensing.

It's her license, no one else's, so she has to be involved. There is nothing stopping Uber applying afresh, now or whenever.

Clearly if Jo goes to the council and removes her name, to be replaced at the same time by someone else, then that license can continue. Again we go back to the plate transfer issue.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 46177
Location: 1066 Country
grandad wrote:
What about if the named person on the license dies suddenly? Does the firm have to cease trading until a new license is granted?

Yes.

I work down here with a average size firm, but (and don't tell anyone) I also do work for a couple of mates who have their own operator's license.

Say one of my mates passed away. If the operator license didn't pass away with him, then who does it go to?

In my view if you want to continue with an operator's license have more than one signatory on the license.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 46177
Location: 1066 Country
StuartW wrote:
the operator/licence holder is the company,

I'm not sure it is.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 6230
Sussex wrote:
grandad wrote:
What about if the named person on the license dies suddenly? Does the firm have to cease trading until a new license is granted?

Yes.

I work down here with a average size firm, but (and don't tell anyone) I also do work for a couple of mates who have their own operator's license.

Say one of my mates passed away. If the operator license didn't pass away with him, then who does it go to?

In my view if you want to continue with an operator's license have more than one signatory on the license.


Suspect there's a mechanism whereby the license of a sole trader continues for a period of time after death so that alternative arrangements can be made.

I mean, someone could be running dozens of vehicles as a proprietor and dies suddenly, but I very much doubt if the vehicles are suddenly unlicensed and the drivers of the vehicles can't work.

And if any licence is held by a company then even if a sole director dies then it doesn't matter to the extent that the company is still 'alive' - a company can only 'die' if it's wound up or dissolved, or whatever. Of course, the shareholders would have to appoint a new director and the licensing authority informed, but a sudden death won't bring a business to a halt because of licensing considerations.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 6230
Sussex wrote:
StuartW wrote:
the operator/licence holder is the company,

I'm not sure it is.


Well if Jo Bertram was the licence holder then forget everything I said, but I very much doubt she was, and that in fact an Uber company was the licence holder.

But either a company or Jo Bertram was the licence holder, they can't both be and there's no inbetween. [-(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 46177
Location: 1066 Country
StuartW wrote:
Suspect there's a mechanism whereby the license of a sole trader continues for a period of time after death so that alternative arrangements can be made.

Possibly the end of the license. But Mr A cannot renew Mr B's license if Mr B doesn't give permission.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 18348
Sussex wrote:
grandad wrote:
What about if the named person on the license dies suddenly? Does the firm have to cease trading until a new license is granted?

Yes.

I work down here with a average size firm, but (and don't tell anyone) I also do work for a couple of mates who have their own operator's license.

Say one of my mates passed away. If the operator license didn't pass away with him, then who does it go to?

In my view if you want to continue with an operator's license have more than one signatory on the license.

It actually happened here and the Council allowed the firm to continue working and allowed them to change the persons name after doing the checks. There was no live person on the license for about 2 months.

_________________
Grandad,
old fart with no heart


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:39 pm
Posts: 1473
Quote:
It actually happened here and the Council allowed the firm to continue working and allowed them to change the persons name after doing the checks. There was no live person on the license for about 2 months.


You can’t have an operators licence in a dead persons name.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group