| Taxi Driver Online http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Pimlico Plumbers Appeal Court Case http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=31276 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | roythebus [ Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Pimlico Plumbers Appeal Court Case |
I've posted an update on the appeal court case on the Court Case database section, it makes interesting reading and could have wide implications for the taxi trade. |
|
| Author: | heathcote [ Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Pimlico Plumbers Appeal Court Case |
roythebus wrote: I've posted an update on the appeal court case on the Court Case database section, it makes interesting reading and could have wide implications for the taxi trade. Uber announced it was supplying certain in work benefits for its drivers and they clearly fall foul of this judgement,a uber driver cannot substitute another driver to do the booking as the subcontract deregulation's state it can only be an operator who can subcontract,same will apply to all other private hire vehicles country wide unless they are the holder of a private hire operator license personally. Not a holder of a private hire operators license,you are without doubt an employee of the private hire operator you are with. |
|
| Author: | bloodnock [ Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Pimlico Plumbers Appeal Court Case |
heathcote wrote: roythebus wrote: I've posted an update on the appeal court case on the Court Case database section, it makes interesting reading and could have wide implications for the taxi trade. Uber announced it was supplying certain in work benefits for its drivers and they clearly fall foul of this judgement,a uber driver cannot substitute another driver to do the booking as the subcontract deregulation's state it can only be an operator who can subcontract,same will apply to all other private hire vehicles country wide unless they are the holder of a private hire operator license personally. Not a holder of a private hire operators license,you are without doubt an employee of the private hire operator you are with. What about partnerships, My wifes a Business partner in my small operation, she is not an employee, can I pass a run on to here as she's as much the owner operator as I am! Or is it the likes of Uber who subcontract work to the so called self employed drive that they mean, or possibly employees of the those subcontractor that ubers referred the work to. |
|
| Author: | roythebus [ Mon May 01, 2017 12:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Pimlico Plumbers Appeal Court Case |
Is she listed with the LA as a partner on the licence? |
|
| Author: | wannabeeahack [ Mon May 01, 2017 10:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Pimlico Plumbers Appeal Court Case |
roythebus wrote: Is she listed with the LA as a partner on the licence? She might have her own ops licence |
|
| Author: | tangarinearmy [ Mon May 01, 2017 10:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Pimlico Plumbers Appeal Court Case |
We are a shareholding taxi company How does this all affect us do you think |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Mon May 01, 2017 9:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Pimlico Plumbers Appeal Court Case |
tangarinearmy wrote: We are a shareholding taxi company How does this all affect us do you think I think you could be ok, but you will have to consider the issue in respect of journeymen. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|