Taxi Driver Online

Off topic, but would have posted all that earlier (the responses to Grandad on the earlier page) but has anyone ever had hundreds of words copied to the Windows clipboard, but you forget, and copy something else, maybe half a dozen words, and the hundreds of words you'd copied earlier is overwritten and lost forever

In fact, just realised earlier that Windows now has a facility for retrieving stuff copied earlier to the clipboard but overwritten, but for some reason it didn't work when I lost the stuff above

If anyone uses the clipboard a lot and doesn't know about retrieving the clipboard history, press the Windows logo key + V at the same time, and it should appear. It's a bit clunky, and it seems to lose everything when you shut down your computer, but it's certainly useful if it works.

do we know yet what the judgment was in the case

_________________
C. Oakes


The Hackney Association Ltd
bbha@btinternet.com

Don't think the court has made the declaration yet, Charles.

Some reports suggested it would happen on Friday, but that seemed unrealistic given that the hearing took place on Thursday and Friday, I think.

So I'd guess a few days yet, or possibly a week or two, if not longer.

(Pedantic note. Not sure if the court will actually give a 'judgement' rather than making a 'declaration', but I'm not sure precisely how these things work. But I don't think it's the kind of case that is resolved by a 'judgement' in the normal sense where one side 'wins' the case )

It should be a judgement.

Even if it looks like a decision, if a judge gives it in high court that is a judgement.

I think.

_________________
IDFIMH

Nothing particularly new here, but obviously written after last week's hearing, and provides a more realistic forecast as regards the timescales involved in, er, handing down the judgement (as highlighted). A decision on the second day of the hearing always seemed a tad unrealistic


High Court case involving Sefton cab firms could impose VAT on passengers

https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwe ... passengers

Taxi fares across the country could jump by a fifth, depending on the outcome of a case involving several Liverpool cab companies.

The Sefton firms, including Delta, one of the biggest private hire operators in the country, are represented by Chester law firm Aaron & Partners.

The case has been brought by US private hire operator, Uber, and has now reached a crucial phase.

Depending on a judge’s final decision, it could force the entire private hire industry to charge VAT on all journeys for the first time.

Uber already charges VAT on its journeys as a result of a series of court cases. Now it seeks to force the same condition on its competition around England and Wales.

If the ride-hailing firm is successful in its bid to sue Sefton Council over the terms for operators outside London, it could mean fares rising by a fifth across the UK.

The case in the High Court began hearing submissions last week with all arguments concluded on Friday. The judge has reserved judgment while she considers the arguments put to her.

Layla Barke-Jones, a partner in Aaron’s dispute resolution team, said: “We are pleased to have had the opportunity to represent the views of our clients in the High Court last week, and we hope to have done enough to protect one of the traditional models of the private hire industry.

“Whether it’s parents on the school run, the elderly accessing vital services such as shops and medical appointments, or people with disabilities travelling from A to B, private hire services are simply vital to communities up and down the country.”

The case comes after Uber revealed last week it was to hand £615m in tax to UK authorities, following the settlement of unpaid VAT.

The app had argued in the past that it was exempt from paying VAT, with its drivers classified as self-employed. A landmark court ruling later clarified its drivers were, indeed, classed as ‘workers’.

With Uber’s revenue massively exceeding the VAT threshold, the company started to charge passengers an additional 20% to cover VAT. Now, Uber wants UK private hire and taxi firms to do the same, and has launched a legal bid against Sefton Council to force them to do so.

Ms Barke-Jones added: “If the consequences of the declaration sought by Uber do arise, as warned by Delta and others, it is likely to bring about a significant rise in fares that will hit the pockets of those who can afford it the least.

“It would also come at a time when people all over the country are already feeling the squeeze of a cost-of-living crisis, with many other basic necessities starting to become unaffordable.

“Simply put, the magnitude and implications of this case will be vast and wide-reaching. We eagerly await its conclusion.”

A decision from the court is expected to be handed down before the end of the year.

But if we need a separate decision on the VAT position under the 1976 Act covering provincial England as opposed to the separate London regime, then presumably we'll need another procedure to examine the position under the Scottish legislation?

Or maybe, if the Sefton decision goes in Uber's favour, then HMRC will just assume it applies to the whole UK, and leave it to Scottish operators to mount some sort of legal challenge if they're dissatisfied, assuming that's the way it works.

But who knows - I'm certainly no expert on the procedures and mechanisms attaching to these things

The Echo has also rehashed the stuff in the article above. I'd guess these new pieces have been initiated by Delta's laywers, as quoted in the piece, and the press have simply rehashed what the lawyers have released to the press.

That way, even if they lose, Delta might think they've gotten their money's worth

Not sure about the Echo's headline claim that Uber is 'suing' Sefton Council though. Don't think 'sue' is the right word regarding this particular process. But, of course, while most of the text of the article will originate from Delta's lawyers, the headline will be written by a sub-editor at the Echo


Uber suing Sefton Council in case that could hike all taxi fares across the country by 20%

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/li ... e-25461229

The ride-hailing app firm has brought a landmark case to the High Court

more like drivers paying more tax if com pay VAT

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

My understanding is that the VAT issue took very little court time to deal with.

The vast majority of the court time, several days I believe, was used in dealing with the workers' rights issue.

Which is surprising when the Supreme Court has already decided on it.

Maybe Uber is trying to get councils, that operate under the 1976 Act, to stipulate to operators that they must offer workers' status to drivers in the same way as TfL does to operators licensed under the 1998 Act.

_________________
IDFIMH

Yes, it seems odd if the employment status angle dominated proceedings, since the declaration sought by Uber was specifically about operators being contractual principals under the licensing legislation (and the declaration didn't even mention VAT, but as regards the interaction between taxation law and contractual law, the VAT dimension would automatically follow if operators were declared principals).

But, as some of us have effectively been saying for years, if lawyers and judges are looking at the Supreme Court decision on employment status and how it interacts with VAT law and the licensing legislation, then they'll surely question why any operator licensed under the 1976 Act doesn't have to give its drivers 'worker' status

Well the ADCU also seems to think the declaration sought by Uber is as much about the 'worker' status thing as the VAT aspect.

Not much new here, but of course it's the opposite angle to that taken by Delta etc.

(This was published before the hearing.)


Private hire drivers' union intervenes in High Court case as regional minicab operators fight to prop up brutal gig economy business model

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article ... ness-model

THE union for private hire drivers intervened in a crucial High Court case today to ensure the “voice of exploited workers is heard.”

The App Drivers & Couriers Union (ADCU) said regional operators are “resisting a legal challenge to close a gig-economy loophole which enables the dodging of worker rights and tax.”

It also accused private hire giant Uber, which the union defeated in a separate High Court legal battle last year, of leading a race to the bottom by enabling operators to set up “sham self-employment arrangements to deny drivers their rights.”

Following the December 2021 ruling, the mega-rich US-owned firm was supposed to change its business model to one which sees the company take on contracts directly with passengers, rather than identifying as an agent.

The new arrangement, which applied to London only, should see drivers reclassified as workers with statutory protections such as paid breaks and holidays, rather than self-employed contractors.

Uber, which is also now liable for VAT payments in the capital, announced on Monday that it had agreed to pay HM Revenue & Customs £615 million in back taxes, but the ADCU slammed the settlement as a “sweetheart deal which covers only a fraction of what is really owed.”

The company is now seeking a declaration to cover its operations across England and Wales. It is asking justices to “clarify” Section 56(1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, which stresses that private hire contracts are made with operators, not drivers.

The union warned the legislation has “never been enforced” and Uber’s appeal is “too limited and distinctly suspect.”

ADCU president Yaseen Aslam said he would “continue to do whatever it takes to clean up the industry and make it fit for workers.”

Uber was contacted for comment.

Struggle to argue with that.

_________________
IDFIMH

Nearly five months since the hearing concluded.

One has to wonder why we are all waiting for so long.

_________________
IDFIMH

the conspiracy theorist in me suspects that ubers' generosity to the Tory party over the years has perhaps seen this put on the back burner " in the countries interests" of course

But, in reality I wonder if the judge has a very high case load and this is proving a very difficult case to pass judgement on.

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

It does open up other questions, we all know that you cannot charge VAT if you’re not registered for it, so how can a driver charge VAT, and then if he is made to Charge VAT will he be allowed to claim the VAT back on his fuel and whatever else he pays out.

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