Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri May 01, 2026 7:53 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 18534
This isn't the easiest read, and there's absolutely zero about the substantive reasons the Court of Appeal overturned the earlier ruling. Only other article I can find is in City AM, which is a bit more straightforward, but again there's zero about the substance of today's ruling.

No doubt more will appear in the next few hours. But this one will run and run anyway, probably all the way to the Supreme Court :-o

But even the lawyer representing Veezu and Delta continually using the t-word here :roll:


Sefton Council successful in its appeal over application of VAT to taxi fares

https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwe ... taxi-fares

The Court of Appeal has today (July 15) ruled in favour of Sefton Council over contract terms for all taxi operators outside London, following a major lawsuit with ride sharing app Uber.

It follows news in July last year that Uber had won its court action involving Sefton Council and Merseyside taxi firm, Delta, meaning passengers could have to pay VAT on journeys.

Followng the latest ruling, Layla Barke-Jones, Dispute Resolution Partner at Chester law firm Aaron & Partners, who represented Delta Taxis, in the case, said: “Today’s decision handed down by the Court of Appeal is a victory for the taxi industry and all those who depend on it.

“This was a landmark case, the result of which could have had a terrible impact on the lives of so many people – not to mention the administrative burden for operators.

“The collective aim for us and our client in this case has always been to protect passengers and taxi firms alike, so the news customers outside London won’t have to have VAT forced upon them will bring a collective sigh of relief.”

She added: “Despite positive economic indications of late, everyone knows that the cost-of-living crisis has hit working families everywhere. The last thing anyone needed was yet another price hike.

“Vulnerable consumers caught in the crossfire of Uber’s lawsuit rely on the services offered by taxi firms. This frequently includes the disabled, elderly and low income households. The Government recognised the potential impact of the initial High Court judgment by launching a consultation identifying that thousands of firms would need to change their operating model forcing them to now collect VAT from passengers.

“Delta Taxis, and fellow operator Veezu, rallied against it by appealing the previous decision up to the Court of Appeal – seeking a decision on appeal that would maintain the safety that the licensing regime provides and promoting fair and open competition for private hire businesses.

“Therefore, we warmly welcome today’s announcement that the appeal has been successful, and would like to pay our gratitude to the hard work of our team including Counsels Philip Kolvin KC, and Jen Coyne.”

The case had its origins in March 2021, when Uber was forced to raise its prices after the court ruled its drivers were now viewed as workers, rather than simply agents.

Uber railed against this in London and lost, then chose to bring a major lawsuit against Merseyside-based Sefton Council over contract terms for all taxi operators outside London. In November 2022, the High Court ruled that operators must contract with passengers. In that case, private hire operators intervened, warning of a potential consequence leading to passengers having to pay VAT on private hire journeys, leading to potential fare hikes of 20%. Despite the warning, the judge, handing down her ruling in July 2023, sided with Uber.

The Government then launched a consultation on possible options to avert the addition of VAT to all journeys. While some private hire companies, like Uber, do charge their passengers VAT, it has been down to the individual firms to decide which business model to use as to whether VAT would apply. The decision secured by Uber in the case of Uber -v- Sefton Borough Council took that choice away from the firms and from passengers.

As well as the fare increase heavily impacting the public amid the cost of living crisis, it was also set to place significant administrative burdens on taxi firms. It was anticipated that forcing operators to change their business model would force a large number of them out of business. It was feared that vulnerable groups who are regular users of private hire services, including the elderly and disabled, would be particularly affected.

Following the ruling, during his Spring Statement, the then Chancellor announced the Government would launch a consultation, the consultation continues to run until August 8, to address the issue.

Meanwhile, the judgement was also challenged at the Court of Appeal by Delta Taxis and Veezu, with a decision announced today that overturned the previous one.

It means passengers will not now face inevitable 20% fare hikes and private hire firms in England and Wales outside London will not have to grapple with how to collect the tax and account for it to HMRC if they choose to operate a model which has been used by the industry for more than 48 years.

The ruling will not affect Uber, which will continue to charge VAT on fares, but will mean many smaller firms can continue to operate as they have previously. Uber is understood to be considering an appeal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 18534
Layla Barke-Jones, Dispute Resolution Partner at Chester law firm Aaron & Partners, who represented Delta Taxis, in the case, wrote:
“Delta Taxis, and fellow operator Veezu, rallied against it by appealing the previous decision up to the Court of Appeal – seeking a decision on appeal that would maintain the safety that the licensing regime provides and promoting fair and open competition for private hire businesses."

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 18534
Slightly more from a different source. This looks like from a Reuters news release:


https://kfgo.com/2024/07/15/ubers-uk-co ... on-appeal/

An Uber spokesperson said: “We will review the judgment of the court in detail and consider our next steps.”

The Uber spokesperson added that “requirements for operators are now inconsistent between London and most of the rest of England and Wales”.

Veezu did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a separate case, Estonian ride-hailing and food delivery startup Bolt last year won an appeal against Britain’s tax authority HMRC about on what it has pay VAT at 20%.

HMRC’s appeal against the ruling that Bolt is only liable for VAT on its margin, rather than the full cost of the trip, is due to be heard in November.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:47 pm
Posts: 20858
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
so different judges dissagree on the VAt issue which is even more reason for proper legislation to resolve the issues once and for all

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 7:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 18534
Judgement here, by the way.

Looks quite short, but I'll leave it to Sussex to actually read it :lol:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/802.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 8:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57355
Location: 1066 Country
Sussex wrote:
If anyone wishes to read the judgment, please feel free.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/802.html

It is a bit complicated, but basically the appeal court said that the London Act states that operators must be the contractor. At the same time, the 1976 act only deemed them to be, and that is quite an important legal difference in the view of the judges.

Another thing, which I think I've read properly, is that the Dereg Act, and the Skyline judgment, have led the appeal court to view operators as unable to be the contractor in some cases, where they pass work onto themselves i.e. cross border hiring within the same company, as companies cannot subcontract to themselves.

It's not that long a judgment if anyone wants to read it, but it's not straightforward.

But is anything straightforward concerning the operating requirements of the 1976 Act? [-(

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 16, 2024 8:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:39 pm
Posts: 1582
The ‘elephant in the room’ is the declaration made by the Divisional Court in the Uber London case. It is in near-identical terms to the declaration which the Court of Appeal has discharged and applies only to private hire bookings accepted in London.
A different Act in different terms.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 16, 2024 1:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57355
Location: 1066 Country
I think they used ‘deemed’ due to the person booking the car not necessarily being the person using the services of the car I.e. the restaurant waiter or the doctor’s receptionist.

Which does lead to some interesting questions in respect of the London Act. Is the waiter or receptionist now the contractor rather than the actual service user?

And who should be the one that reclaims the VAT on London fares?

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:47 pm
Posts: 20858
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
the liverpool echos Deltacentric version


https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delta-wins-legal-battle-uber-29548760

The decision has been described as a 'victory for the taxi industry and all those who depend on it'

nowt new that's not in t'other stories

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 16, 2024 6:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57355
Location: 1066 Country
Think this is from one of the KC's chambers.

https://www.ftbchambers.co.uk/news/news ... gh-council

Lewison LJ held that section 56(1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 does not impose a requirement for an operator who accepts a private hire booking to enter as principal into a contractual obligation with the passenger. Lewison LJ rejected Uber’s submissions that the requirement sought was a necessary implication in the interest of passenger safety.

The judgment clarifies that although there is an implied requirement under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 for operators in London to enter into a contract there is no such requirement in the rest of the country. The judgment will have far-reaching implications for private hire operators outside London, who will be relieved to hear that they have not been operating unlawfully, as Uber would have it, for the last forty or so years.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 16, 2024 7:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57355
Location: 1066 Country
And Mr Kolvin KC gives us his breakdown of the decision.

https://www.11kbw.com/knowledge-events/ ... inst-uber/

He says what I said earlier in a far more straightforward manner, but then again he is a KC. :D

While the difference between an obligation to contract and a deemed contract may seem technical, it carries potential fiscal consequences, since if operators are bound to contract, then they would be bound to charge their passengers VAT.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2024 4:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57355
Location: 1066 Country
I find it interesting that Uber’s main, possibly only line of defence, was based on the safety of customers.

You really couldn’t make it up. [-(

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2024 9:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:17 pm
Posts: 2712
I'd suggest that if all ph drivers became VAT registered they may well be better off as they could reclaim most of the VAT they pay on purchasing things for their business, like 20% cheaper fuel, car maintenance etc. No vat on insurance or rod tax yet!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 578 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group