Taxi Driver Online

Indeed, that's the crux of the question.

Suspect North Yorks Police would have to concede that that's allowed because it's not a local job.

But how would they then reconcile that with their interpretation of the Misc Pro Act?

Yes

I know the answer is yes but do the York police?

_________________
Grandad,
To support my charity text MAYORWALK to 70085 to donate £5

I was drunk

I think the police response is to the 1976 act without taking into account other legislation


SO Yorks police vs Uber for the next court case anyone ?

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !

Oh, well, this is interesting, and it seems it's all been a waste of time. Which was kind of what I was thinking last night - if you read the actual quote from North Yorks Police, it's the kind of 'comms' spiel that doesn't actually directly address the point in hand, and maybe just tries to deflect attention from whatever's in issue:


Anyway, by some happy coincidence it seems York's licensing commitee met last night (online, obviously), and the issue was discussed. And the outcome, basically, is that nothing's changed.

But, in summary, the licensing manager confirms the existing position, and basically says the police view has been misreported. So whether Wendy Loveday has maybe gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick, or maybe police have realised their own legal advice is totally at odds with the council's, and have U-turned and are basically trying to cover their tracks, isn't clear.

The licensing manager says that police have stated that it's up to the council to enforce these things, but the council simply thinks there's nothing to enforce.

And apparently police are going to write things down and get in touch with Wendy Loveday to clarify things

But otherwise, in essence, the licensing manager says police will engage with Uber drivers, and if they're working then it's fine, but if they're just hanging about then they'll send them home under the Covid regulations

Um, I doubt they'll be hanging around for the fun of it, so if they are hanging around they'll be waiting for work, so essentially it looks like police will be doing nothing.

Or, at most, will be doing what Merseyside Police were doing, which looked distinctly dodgy to me

Anyway, there's a link to the council meeting on YouTube below. I've linked it to where Wendy Loveday starts to speak to save you sitting through the minutes etc

Wendy Loveday speaks for around three minutes, then basically the licensing manager says in effect nothing has changed.

The trade stuff ends at about 19.00 minutes, but before that there's a question about the York Cars appeal, and apparently the preliminary hearing takes place next month.

So all in all the trade stuff goes on for about a quarter of an hour, but part of that is problems like the licensing chair being on mute while he's talking, the licensing manager's voice distorting so much he has to repeat it all, and half way through all this someone asks how precisely they approve the minutes during an online meeting

And one councillor suggest an emergeny meeting on Monday to discuss it all, and the 'democracy officer' is summoned from nowhere to say that there's not enough time to publish the agenda etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=330&v=Z ... e=youtu.be

If you've heard Wendy Loveday on the radio then maybe just as well jumping in at the point below, because in essence she just says the same to the licensing committee, but I think it's a bit easier to work out what she's saying on the radio version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=540&v=Z ... e=youtu.be

Well I've put it up here.

When are the drivers “working” for Uber?

The Supreme Court also holds that the employment tribunal was entitled to find that time spent by the claimants working for Uber was not limited (as Uber argued) to periods when they were actually driving passengers to their destinations, but included any period when the driver was logged into the Uber app within the territory in which the driver was licensed to operate and was ready and willing to accept trips.


What the Justices are saying is Uber drivers are entitled to 'worker' status when they are logged on in their licensing area.

What the Justices are not saying is they shouldn't ever work elsewhere, else they would have said that. Having first been addressed by counsel on that matter.

_________________
IDFIMH

However looking at the article in Wired, and reflecting on parts of the judgement, maybe Uber are acting outside of the London Act according to the Justices.

This paragraph in Wired summarises the situation.

The Supreme Court judges were not convinced that Uber’s business model complies with the laws that govern private hire bookings in London. In the judgment, they argued that the only way that Uber could comply with the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 was to also provide the actual transportation and that providing it through a platform, as Uber does, would be illegal.

I wonder if the London trade and TfL will dig a little deeper.

_________________
IDFIMH

Not sure if Wire has maybe gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick?

Had a quick look last night, and noticed this in particular:


I'm thinking maybe Uber was using the contractual situation (all that principal/agent stuff etc from contract law) to argue its case, but the court said if Uber was correct then that wouldn't comply with the London legislation, but Uber was incorrect so the point about the legislation isn't really an issue?

Either way, isn't this just as relevant to mainstream minicab operators, or in fact maybe it's relevant to them now and not to Uber?

But the judgement is heavy going, and really needs to be read as a whole to even begin to formulate an opinion on it. But maybe that's why I never read 40-page court judgements

Not sure if there's been any clarification from North Yorks Police yet, but did anyone notice the comments below the YouTube video from Wendy Loveday of the York PHA?

Looks like she's not best pleased with the council, and its licensing manager in particular. When someone suggested she'd misinterpreted what the police superintendent had said to her, she replied:





Of course, it may be that North Yorks Police *did* tell Wendy Loveday that they considered Uber to be operating illegally, but subsequently changed their mind, maybe when they found out that York City Council's own legal advice was the complete opposite.

So maybe North Yorks Police have U-turned, but of course acknowledging that sort of thing can be awkward and embarassing from a PR/comms perspective, so instead they say nothing, and pretend nothing's happened, and hope no one will notice. But this makes Wendy Loveday look a bit silly, not necessarily through any fault of her own, and everyone's a bit confused and at loggerheads. And, obviously, there's the Covid dimension just to confuse things further.

But a 'reverse ferret', I think they call it in the press - "...a phrase used predominantly within the British media to describe a sudden reversal in an organisation's editorial or political line on a certain issue. Generally, this will involve no acknowledgement of the previous position."

(If anyone's interested, click on the blue text for the full Wikipedia article on the origins of the phrase.)