LONDON    

The High Court has confirmed that switching your taximeter on before you assist a disabled person – even if you do not actually charge them – is an office under the Equality Act 2010.

The Circumstances 

London Black Cab driver Thomas McNutt was found guilty of an offence under section 165 of the Equality Act 2010 when he switched on his taximeter before assisting the complainant, Emma Vogelman, with loading her wheelchair.  Mr McNutt was found guilty despite not actually charging the complainant any money, in fact he did not end up taking Ms Vogelman.

Mr McNutt sought an appeal by way of case stated.  The questions before Mr Justice Julian Knowles were:

    Did Mr McNutt make an additional charge for carrying a wheelchair user, Emma Vogelman, on 4 October 2017?

    Did the magistrates err in law by convicting him of making an additional charge for carrying a wheelchair user, contrary to s 165(7) Equality Act 2010?

The main issue on the appeal is whether a ‘charge’ was made by Mr McNutt by the act of him switching on his taximeter before Ms Vogelman had boarded, even though she never entered his taxi, no money was demanded (either expressly or by implication) and they ended up travelling in a different taxi.

Mr McNutt argued that the temporary activation of a taximeter without more does not result in the making of a ‘charge’ within the meaning of s 165.

 He argued that action alone is not sufficient to amount to a charge in circumstances where Ms Vogelman did not enter his cab, no monies changed hands, no price was quoted and no services rendered. He says there has to be a demand for the fare (either expressly or by implication) before the taxi driver ‘makes a … charge’ within s 165(4)(b). 

Mr McNutt also argued that a charge is not made until the end of the journey because then and only then can the payable amount be determined with certainty. 

Transport for London, respondents in the case, argued that the phrase ‘make any additional charge’ in s 165 is not restricted to merely occurring at the point at which the metered fare (including an impermissible extra amount) is actually demanded at the end of the journey, but should also include: 

    when an indication is given by the driver at the point of hiring that they will be made liable to an additional charge and;

    where the taximeter is switched on before the disabled person and their wheelchair have been loaded, thereby creating a pecuniary obligation on the disabled passenger to pay the metered fare, the boarding process taking more time than it would for a non-disabled person, thereby resulting in an additional charge.

TfL argued that if Mr McNutt’s argument is correct, most taxi drivers would be able to avoid carrying disabled passengers by giving an indication at the point of hiring that there would be a significant surcharge. That would discourage most disabled passengers from travelling with that driver. 

The judgement

Mr Justice Julian Knowles dismissed Mr McNutt’s appeal ruling that “…in my judgment the words ‘make an additional charge’ in s 165(4)(b) mean to impose an additional financial liability or commitment on a disabled wheelchair user as compared with an able bodied passenger, and such a liability or commitment is imposed no later than the point when a London taxi driver switches on his meter before such a person and their wheelchair have boarded the taxi.”

 In relation to TfL’s argument that, by giving an indication at the point of hiring, this would put disabled people off, Knowles J said: “In my judgment such an indication also amounts to a financial liability or commitment, and thus a charge within s 165(4)(b), albeit of a contingent kind.”

Implications

Whilst this case related to a TfL licensed Black Cab driver, Knowles J noted that “I have focussed in this judgment on London taxis fitted with taximeters because this appeal concerns such a vehicle. However, I hope it will be of assistance if I say something about private hire vehicles (PHVs) in London, and taxis and PHVs outside London, all of which are also subject to s 165… I see no basis for reaching a different conclusion in relation to hackney carriages outside London as compared with those in London. 

    “Providing an inflated fare estimate to a disabled passenger would in my view infringe s 165(4)(a) even though there may be no liability on the passenger (who may refuse to accept the estimate). To amplify what I have already said about taxi drivers providing inflated fare estimates if, for example, a licensed private hire company had a poster in the window of its office to the effect that there was a £50 surcharge for a wheelchair user, then that would amount be a contingent additional charge caught by s 165(4)(b). If this were not so then private hire companies could avoid taking disabled passengers without consequence which, for the reasons I have already given, would be inconsistent with the entire purpose of s 165.”

https://bit.ly/2tEoyUr
--------------------------------------

Crowdfunded lawyer suing Uber told he can't swerve taxi app giant's £1m legal bill
If you lose, get your cheque book out, High Court judge rules amid two-year legal battle
A millionaire barrister who started a crowdfunded lawsuit against taxi app maker Uber over a £1 VAT receipt has lost his attempt to stop Uber claiming legal costs against him.

In a judgment handed down today, Mr Justice Trower rejected both Jolyon Maugham QC's attempt to shield himself from a legal bill of up to £1m and his initial attempt to appeal against that rejection, a big setback for Maugham's two-year legal battle against Uber in London.

In throwing out Maugham's attempt to limit his costs liability to £20,000 in the High Court case he brought against the infamous taxi app, the judge found that Maugham had crowdfunded £107,650 to bring the case, "of which well in excess of 50%" came from "the black cab trade" – including £20,000 from a single unidentified black cab source. Taxi drivers in the British capital see Uber as their main commercial rival.

Had Mr Justice Trower made the protective costs order that Maugham asked him to, the lawyer would have had to pay no more than £20,000 if he lost – giving him a big advantage considering that, in the judge's words, Uber's legal costs "could reach £1m at first instance".

Maugham, a tax lawyer, is currently suing Uber in the High Court over what he says is its failure to give him a VAT receipt for £1.06 on a £6.34 taxi journey, an amount he accepted to be "trivial". 

This would allow him to reclaim the money from HMRC as a business expense. He argued that the true force of his lawsuit would be to expose Uber London Ltd to liability for extra taxes.

In court papers seen by The Register Maugham's net income was said to be £400,000 a year, something the judge took into account when deciding not to stop Uber from recovering its legal costs if it wins the main case. He also owns two properties.

Uber argues that it "does not itself provide transportation services" and is therefore not subject to VAT on its taxi journeys. If Uber users want VAT receipts, it told the judge that depends "on whether the driver... is registered for VAT". If a court rules that Uber itself is subject to VAT, however, Maugham – who is well known for his campaigning against the 2016 result of the UK's referendum on the EU – claimed he could trigger a £1bn VAT bill against Uber.

This morning Uber and Maugham's legal teams were engaged in further arguments over a potential £157,000 legal bill just for the one-day application hearing on 6 February.

In a statement published by his Good Law Project, Maugham said: "We have grave concerns about the implications of the decision. It is an invitation to private corporations to use the threat of costs liability to dodge legal accountability. It makes it difficult or impossible to hold them to account. It damages the rule of law. And these consequences, we believe, will further undermine popular consent to capitalism."

The case, Maugham QC v Uber London Ltd, continues. ®

source: Taxi Defence Barristers
--------------------------------------

Birmingham’s black cab drivers are switching to cheaper and more easily available private hire cars to beat new clean air rules.

And they have warned they will ‘make a noise’ to protect their jobs unless more help is made available to the struggling trade.

Birmingham’s Hackney Carriage drivers have been told to swap their ageing and heavily polluting cars for new electric vehicles, or convert them to run on gas if they wish to keep their licences after January 1, 2020.

Both the new licensing regime and plans for a clean air zone means that the vast majority of black cabs on the roads will either not be licensed or be charged to operate in the city centre.

With new electric black cabs costing at least £55,000, many drivers have instead decided to apply for the less strict private hire licence - under which they can drive regular petrol cars made after 2006 and diesel cars since 2015.

The decision to axe licences for high polluting cabs from 2020 was made last year, amid warnings that it would leave just 70 black cabs on the road, down from the current level of more than 1,300.

Taxi driver and RMT union representative Mozafar Ali said the future for drivers is ‘very unclear’ and called on council bosses to make detailed plans to help drivers.

“We are not very happy, about 90 per cent of black cab drivers cannot afford an electric car - it is £55,000 or £176 per week to lease them. We are struggling as it is.”

He said drivers want to see firm offers of help to go green or the city risks being short of cabs. "Otherwise we are going to have to make a noise," he warned.

The authority has claimed cabs – which queue in ranks with engines running – were partly responsible for the city centre’s high levels of nitrogen dioxide, which causes an estimated 900 premature deaths a year in Birmingham.

The taxi drivers say they work in the city centre and want cleaner vehicles too - but need help.
Now city council bosses are offering parallel licences in a single application - to offer black cab drivers the chance to gain a private hire license, which has less stringent requirements, without paying extra.

The council believes there is an increasing demand from black cab drivers for private hire licences.
A licensing officer said: “This increase is for two reasons. One is because a lot of drivers would like to work for Uber, whether that is right or not is up to them.

Brum's new Clean Air Zone (CAZ)
“And there’s an imminent requirement to replace the older and more polluting hackney carriage vehicles.”

He said they are looking to ‘diversify’ into private hire driving until the costs of electric or greener black cabs comes down enough for them to go back.
The first electric cab dealership in Birmingham was launched this week.

As part of its consultation on the clean air zone the council has pledged to look at a leasing scheme for green cabs.

https://bit.ly/2EyHev9