ALL THINGS LICENSING
Article by Mike Smith, Senior Specialist for Licensing and Community Safety at Guildford Borough Council and Vice-Chair of the Institute of Licensing South East Region.
Please note that this article represents my own views which are not presented as the views of the Institute of Licensing or Guildford Borough Council.
The traditional ‘lull’ for local authorities during the summer holiday period has been as interrupted as a day at the beach in the rain or journey home with a transport strike, with the handing down of the judgement in the Uber Britannia Limited v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council & Others case.
As a result, both the licensed trade and local authorities will either be jumping up and down with excitement or burying their heads in the sand at the resulting judgement and what it means.
Uber v Sefton Judgement – what does it mean?
If you are not aware or are unsure of what this judgement means, it is ultimately a case affecting contracts following the earlier Uber employment judgement affecting workers rights in London last year, with this case now stating that those principles apply in the provinces outside London for private hire operator licences issued under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
The preface to the case is that on 6 December 2021, the case of Uber London Ltd v Transport for London & others [2021] EWHC 3290 (Admin), the Divisional Court ruled in order to operate lawfully under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 (the legislation governing private hire in London):
f“ a licensed operator who accepts a booking ”
rom a passenger is required to enter as principal into a contractual obligation with the passenger to provide the journey which is the subject of the booking.
This case as part of a series of litigation required the operator concerned to change its business model to contract directly with passengers rather than classifying itself as an agent.
6
This has helped confirm the operator’s driver status as workers with statutory protections and has also had VAT implications. This was predominantly a case relating to workers’ rights, however it has had implications for all London-based operators in respect of their operating model. Where a passenger makes a booking, the judgement places the operator under an obligation to enter into a contract with the passenger as principal and their responsibilities under that contractual relationship.
Following the above, in order to level the competitive playing field nationally, Uber sought a declaration at the High Court for the judgement imposed on it relating to London to cover the rest of England and Wales where operators are governed by the LGMPA 1976. This was opposed by the Veezu Group, Delta Merseyside and a coalition of operators represented by these.
The most recent case’ Uber Britannia Limited v Sefton MBC & Others, was decided and judgement handed down on 28 July. In her ruling, Mrs Justice Foster DBE agreed with Uber and hence the current system and practices allowed by councils since adoption of the 1976 Act should now change.
As a result, the position is that all private hire operators must now accept the contractual responsibility for the transport of their passengers. The obligation applies to all private hire vehicle operators in England and Wales, regardless of how many vehicles and drivers are available to them, the employment status of their drivers who carry out bookings accepted by them and whether the operator accepts bookings by telephone, in-person, online or via an app. The judgement will affect all operators differently, concerning some very little and others a great deal.
Following the judgement, all private hire operators must satisfy themselves that they are complying with the obligation and fulfilling their responsibilities under private hire legislation in relation to the contractual arrangements they have in place with passengers and drivers. TfL, which has obviously been grappling with these principles since the initial judgement, has produced Guidance to Operators, detailing these responsibilities which include that:
SEPTEMBER 2023 PHTM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80
