Editorial Comment:
Again, TfL have skirted round the the outside of a major problem facing the Licensed Taxi trade.
The major objection to the Uber app is that it is in contravention to the Private Hire Vehicles Act 1998. This app puts passengers in direct contact with driver which is in effect a direct hail. As this hail is not a pre booking, then the driver has accepted the ride by plying for hire. The present legislation only permits licensed Hackney carriages to ply for hire and so, the PH driver using the app, is illegally plying for hire.
A note for consideration is that in the Law Commission report, the powers to be want to do away with the words "Hackney Carriage" from all legislation. Bit of a coincidence don't you think.
Uber applied to TfLTPH in 2012 and under the directorship of John Mason, brushed aside much of the legal requirements and issued them with an operators licence, even though they had no operating centre or land line to take bookings.
After news that the Taxi trade were to mount a massive united trade demo over TfL's incompetent handling of Taxi and private hire licensing, they have announced that they are to seek a high court interpretation of the word taximeter. Believing this would be enough to stem the upcoming demo, they have asked the trade to wait until a legal definition has been made.
The meter issue is only a small part of the Uber saga. Even if a judge were to rule that the drivers phone is being used as a meter, Uber will just change the pricing structure and carry on regardless.
Below is TfL's latest press release on the meter issue.
Transport for London (TfL), which regulates and licenses the taxi and private hire trades in the capital in the interests of passengers, has now begun the formal process for securing a High Court ruling on taximeters.
Formal 'letters before action' have now been issued to Uber and the main trade bodies - the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association and the Licensed Private Hire Car Association - proposing that they will be called to take part in the action being brought by TfL.
TfL is seeking a High Court ruling on whether smart phones that use GPS technology to measure the time and distance of a journey and then receive information about fares comply with current law on 'taximeters', which can only be used in London by taxis.
The rapid pace at which smart phone based technology has been developing in recent years has led to a need for clarity about what is required in order for apps to comply with the regulatory framework in London and to ensure there is a level playing field for all operators.
TfL set out its provisional view that smart phones used by private hire drivers do not constitute the equipping of a vehicle with a ‘taximeter’. However, given the level of concern among the trade, and the fact that some of the legislation in this area is unclear and able to be interpreted in various ways, TfL is inviting the High Court to give a binding determination on this issue.
This move has been welcomed by the pre-eminent authority on taxi law in England and Wales, James Button.
James Button said: “The law on this issue is currently uncertain and open to interpretation. It is therefore a sensible approach to seek a binding ruling from the High Court, where all parties can present their views and the Court will clarify the position.”
Leon Daniels, TfL’s Managing Director of Surface Transport, said: “The process for securing a High Court ruling on the issue of taximeters is now underway. We hope that London's taxi drivers and private hire drivers and operators recognise that this is the sensible approach and will work with us.
"We welcome developments that make life easier for passengers. As in many other areas of transport and retail services apps can offer passengers the potential of better and more convenient services, but their use must be legal and on the issue of taximeters the law is unclear. We have taken a provisional view, and a binding High Court ruling will bring clarity on this issue for all parties."
ENDS
Editorial Notes:
Notice that TFL say:
![]()
"This move has been welcomed by the pre-eminent authority on taxi law in England and Wales, James Button."
And yet when we informed LTPH that we had contacted Mr Button and in his opinion Minicabs/Private Hire could not stand and wait to be hired, we were told he was not a judge, he was only a Derbyshire solicitor. Now he's suddenly a pre-eminent authority on taxi law in England and Wales
Leon Daniels announces:
We welcome developments that make life easier for passengers
Does that include bending the law to make it "fit the purpose" Leon?
Silly me I thought the wording was PH operators had to be "fit for purpose".
