Taxi Driver Online

Uber taxi driver who operated illegally in Reading ordered to pay almost £3,000 in legal costs

https://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news ... gal-costs/

A SOUTHAMPTON City Council licensed Uber driver has been hit with legal costs of almost £3,000 after illegally picking up £6 fares in Reading.

Muhamad Ismail Mahumuthu Atham, of Kingsgate Street, Reading, was ordered to pay legal costs of £2,865 to the council after being found guilty at Reading Magistrates' Court in November 2020.

The 48-year-old was caught by two council officers on Church Street, Caversham, on Sunday, March 17, 2019 in the early hours of the morning.

Mr Atham was seen picking up two passengers outside Mo’s Kebab Van.

The officers approached his vehicle and stopped him from leaving with the passengers.

Mr Atham appeared at Reading Magistrates’ Court on Monday, November 9, 2020, where he was found guilty and sentenced to a 12-month conditional discharge.

Cllr Tony Page, Lead Councillor for Strategic Environment, Planning and Transport, said: “Regulations exist to protect the travelling public and I am delighted that they are being enforced by our officers.

“Reading’s taxi and private hire drivers are facing a dismal time at present, with very low levels of business in the town.

“I hope that this judgement will deter any drivers thinking of working illegally in Reading, as such activity will not be tolerated.”

I assume this is a genuine plying for hire offence, but it's not entirely clear - wasn't it Reading that tried to say simply an app booking amounted to plying for hire?

But the driver's address is in Reading, so presumably he's not actually working in Southampton. So Southampton is where Uber drivers down there go to get plated?

Southampton, Portsmouth, Chichester and Havant are the favourite councils for those not wanting to work there.

Well done Reading council, who along with York council really really dislike Uber.

_________________
IDFIMH

one minute you want to work for them the next you hate them you are complicated

Seriously though that is a big wedge of cash and it's got me thinking would it be an interesting exercise to do a few comparisons between different areas of the fines and costs levied because there is quite a large variation?

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

Was kind of assuming that, but thought Reading seemed a bit out of the way, but maybe not.

But was guessing Reading in a different geofencing area to Southampton, but maybe not that either.

And was looking at what used to be Uber's 'popular jurisdictions' councils for each area, and it's apparently Portsmouth, Soton and Fareham for the South Coast region.

https://www.uber.com/gb/en/drive/portsm ... a-license/

But that's maybe an old page (I can't get to that page via the Uber website, and don't know how to get to other 'popular jurisdiction' pages via their website) so don't know how precisely they're working now, and what 'popular jurisdiction' they're recommending for Reading.

Uber's website for drivers is getting very messy.

Anyway, this other Uber page for Soton licensing suggests it isn't particuarly easy there, with a BTEC driving assessment, and topo test.

https://www.uber.com/gb/en/drive/portsm ... -ignition/

Of course, that could be a lot easier in reality than it might look, and there could be other factors like cost and timescales, or vehicle requirements.

Or maybe I'm a bit behind the times and Soton's spec isn't really that onerous these days.

Well you can do it then

Or maybe PHTM could do a league table

I really detest Uber, and what they have done to the trade, which has cost them $22,000,000,000 so far.

However if I can work with a firm that takes work from out of town cars, then I will be more than happy to do so.

_________________
IDFIMH

And a big co*k up from this lot viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19295

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

Is it their fault ? was it not Cameron & Osbourne who ignored their work and brought in the deregulation bill instead for ubers benefit ?

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

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

Before people start having to scroll up and down another half-mile long thread looking for tiny bits of relevant information in fact I think it was the Law Commission who proposed the deregulation stuff, and the Tories simply rubber-stamped it (as I think Mr T is alluding).

And, while it wasn't relevant to Scotland, and that's one reason I didn't pay too much attention to it, I think the Law Commission's study was in train before Uber really became a thing. So no doubt Uber has been one of the main beneficiaries of cross-border deregulation, but I don't think it was originally intended to benefit Uber.

By the way, STOP MISUSING THE AMPERSAND (&)

In years to come, when everyone's forgotten about David and George, anyone reading this will think Cameron & Osborne are a firm of lawyers, accountants or estate agents

Oh, and while I'm in pedantic mode, there's no 'u' in Osborne

My understanding was that the deregulation bill was drawn up based on the "red tape challenge" and was not aware that it was a law society proposal

Ed&de&rs&23

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

But there is a “u” in c*nt.

_________________
Former taxi driver

May have been part of the red tape challenge, but pretty sure it originated from the Law Commission's study. After all, they spent a year or two on it, and produced several hundreds of pages, and I think the cross-border degregulation is just about all there is to show from it?

(And the stuff about extending licence durations?)

And, not trying to be pedantic, but it was the Law Commission's report, not the Law Society. The Law Society is an independent body regulating and representing solicitors, and isn't really anything directly to do with the UK Government.

The Law Commission is part of the public sector, and its remit is to review the law and legislation, and suggest improvements and changes to the Government.

But the important point is that I think the Government asks the Law Commission to review aspects of the law, while it has no such jurisdiction over the Law Society.

And, as I recall it, the Conservatives asked the Law Commission to review taxi and private hire licensing with a deregulatory remit, so to that degree the Law Commission's cross-border thing could be said to have resulted from a process started by the Tories.

But the study kicked off in the summer of 2011. So, while I could be wrong, I doubt if Uber was really a factor in it all back then. But obviously Uber turned out to have been the major beneficiary.

In fact I suspect the impetus for deregulating cross-border working came more from the local and regional private hire moguls, some of whom I mentioned earlier in another thread. So perhaps what they hoped would benefit them ended up costing them a shedload of money

Well you may be incapable of (or unwilling) using the quote function properly, but I wouldn't call you *that*

Anyway, I thought you were quite right wing, or is Osborne too left wing these days? Or have I got totally got the wrong end of the stick?