Taxi Driver Online

High Court rules in favour of Uber over Reading Borough Council. App does not amount to plying for hire

https://www.taxidefencebarristers.co.uk ... ng-appeal/

Stephen McCaffrey, Taxi Defence Barristers

The High Court has today held that use of the Uber app does not amount to plying for hire.

Reading Borough Council had prosecuted an Uber driver, Mr Ali, who had been waiting for his next booking on the Uber app. He was parked lawfully by the roadside and doing nothing to attract the attention of passers-by.

Lord Justice Flaux said in his judgement: “In my judgment, there was no unlawful plying for hire in this case for a number of reasons. First, the mere depiction of the respondent’s vehicle on the Uber App, without either the vehicle or the driver being specifically identified or the customer using the App being able to select that vehicle, is insufficient to establish exhibition of the vehicle in the sense in which that phrase is used by Lord Parker CJ in formulating the two stage test for plying for hire in Cogley v Sherwood and Rose v Welbeck. That requires not just exhibition of the vehicle but its exhibition expressly or implicitly soliciting custom, inviting members of the public to hire the vehicle.”

Flaux LJcontinued: “It seems to me that depiction of the vehicle on the App does not involve any exhibition of that kind, but is for the assistance of the Uber customer using the App, who can see that there are vehicles in the vicinity of the type he or she wishes to hire…If I ring a minicab firm and ask for a car to come to my house within five minutes and the operator says “I’ve got five cars round the corner from you. One of them will be with you in five minutes,” there is nothing in that transaction which amounts to plying for hire. As a matter of principle, I do not consider that the position should be different because the use of internet technology avoids the need for the phone call.

“Second, it does not seem to me that the position is different because, as between Uber and the driver, the latter is a principal and Uber is an agent. Whether this agency analysis is correct has not been finally decided. However, like the Chief Magistrate and contrary to Mr Holland’s submissions, I do not consider that it has any bearing on the issue in this case. On the findings she made as to how the Uber App works, the customer has to confirm the booking after he or she is given the fare estimate and the driver in turn has to accept the booking before either of them knows the identity of the other and before the car actually comes to the pick-up point.”

He ruled that as far as Uber’s model is concerned: “…there is a pre-booking by the customer, which is recorded by Uber as PHV operator, before the specific vehicle which will perform the job is identified. This is all in accordance with the transaction being PHV business, not unlawful plying for hire. There was no soliciting by the respondent without some prior booking, as he only proceeded to the pick-up point after the customer had confirmed the booking and the respondent as driver had accepted the job.”

The Court refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Full judgement:

https://cornerstonebarristers.com/cmsAd ... nal-wp.pdf

The LAW LORD referencing Cogley v Sherwood and Rose v Welbeck surely means that private hire vehicles cannot display a telephone number.

Are you saying that I could have a dozen private hire vehicles all licensed by my authority and they can go and sit somewhere out of the way in say Nottingham, then providing They don't have a phone number on then it is ok for me to advertise and accept a booking for them in that area?

_________________
Grandad,

Ah but did m'lord consider that the app is also a meter

So Heathy my boy is that relevant ? or has this judgement still befuddled you

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

No massive surprise in this judgement, and TBH I didn't think Reading would appeal the Chief Mags decision.

But it's good they did as it saves someone else the problem.

The only thing I think might have helped under different circumstances would have been if the original cars, be they HC or PH, were signed up. Particularly if they were HC.

But sadly they weren't at the time so that question was never tested.

_________________
IDFIMH

It would appear from this case yes.

That's what is going on in Liverpool now.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Depends on the precise circumstances, I suspect. For example, sitting close by a rank, close to pub/nightclub at chucking out time, near station rank. And signage (including phone number) just one other factor in the equation. Judge here just said that the app in itself didn't mean that an Uber car was plying for hire.

By the way, don't think it was a law lord who decided the case. LJ means Lord Justice, which I think normally means a Court of Appeal judge, while this case seems to have been decided in the High Court.

And I don't think law lord is a term in use anymore, because the House of Lords in its capacity as the highest court in the land has been replaced by the Supreme Court.

Anyway, it's all very complicated according to this page on Wiki, but pretty sure it wasn't a law lord who decided the case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_ ... _and_Wales

Lord Justice Flaux said in his judgement: “In my judgment, there was no unlawful plying for hire in this case for a number of reasons. First, the mere depiction of the respondent’s vehicle on the Uber App, without either the vehicle or the driver being specifically identified or the customer using the App being able to select that vehicle, is insufficient to establish exhibition of the vehicle in the sense in which that phrase is used by Lord Parker CJ in formulating the two stage test for plying for hire in Cogley v Sherwood and Rose v Welbeck. That requires not just exhibition of the vehicle but its exhibition expressly or implicitly soliciting custom, inviting members of the public to hire the vehicle.”

Flaux LJcontinued: “It seems to me that depiction of the vehicle on the App does not involve any exhibition of that kind, but is for the assistance of the Uber customer using the App, who can see that there are vehicles in the vicinity of the type he or she wishes to hire…If I ring a minicab firm and ask for a car to come to my house within five minutes and the operator says “I’ve got five cars round the corner from you. One of them will be with you in five minutes,” there is nothing in that transaction which amounts to plying for hire. As a matter of principle, I do not consider that the position should be different because the use of internet technology avoids the need for the phone call.

“Second, it does not seem to me that the position is different because, as between Uber and the driver, the latter is a principal and Uber is an agent. Whether this agency analysis is correct has not been finally decided. However, like the Chief Magistrate and contrary to Mr Holland’s submissions, I do not consider that it has any bearing on the issue in this case. On the findings she made as to how the Uber App works, the customer has to confirm the booking after he or she is given the fare estimate and the driver in turn has to accept the booking before either of them knows the identity of the other and before the car actually comes to the pick-up point.”

He ruled that as far as Uber’s model is concerned: “…there is a pre-booking by the customer, which is recorded by Uber as PHV operator, before the specific vehicle which will perform the job is identified. This is all in accordance with the transaction being PHV business, not unlawful plying for hire. There was no soliciting by the respondent without some prior booking, as he only proceeded to the pick-up point after the customer had confirmed the booking and the respondent as driver had accepted the job.”

The Court refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

''Uber customers can see the vehicle ready to respond....not much different to a hackney plying for hire''...Is it ?
.Uber is an agent ?...That is contrary to what the employnment tribunal has so far ruled....that drivers are employees and Uber employ them....( I am aware that this has now gone to the supreme court )
Refusing permission to take it to Supreme Court is also wrong in my opinion...

Well the court has decided its not.

However, if it had agreed it was plying, then that's tens of thousands of us working on app based systems absolutely f***ed.

Including hackneys.

_________________
IDFIMH

Another viewpoint of the judgement.

https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/02/uber ... -taxi-law/

_________________
IDFIMH

But the uber app also calculates the price other apps just call the taxi/ph I think there should be some distinction there surely

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

So you're saying PHVs with meters fitted are plying for hire?

Good luck with that one

Anyway, as I've always said about this issue, it's stretching things a bit to claim that a car physically *invisible* to the punter can be considered plying for hire.