Public law update

Uber , which is mainly a private hire vehicle company, operates through the use of Smartphone ‘Apps’ . The Uber network operation includes a procedure under which the fact that a customer is to be charged is communicated via both the customer’s and the driver’s Smartphones. Where the vehicle operating under the Uber network is a private hire vehicle, the fare is calculated within central servers which communicate with the Smartphones, using GPS data and time details relayed from the Smartphones.

The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association (LTDA) and the Licensed Private Hire Car Association (LPHCA) challenged the legality of the Uber system on the basis that the driver’s Smartphone, when equipped with the relevant App that enabled its use, was such that the Smartphone amounted to a taximeter in contravention of Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 s11. This provision allows the existence of private hire licences in London, but creates a criminal off ence for any vehicle to which a private hire licence relates being equipped with a taximeter.

LTDA and LPHCA launched a private prosecution alleging that the Uber operation was illegal. The legal issue which was the basis of the private prosecution was adjourned to allow Uber and Transport for London (TfL) to seek a declaration on the legality of the operation.

The court’s decision appears a sensible one, as it provides protection and uniform fare calculation for passengers who use the Uber service.

The Administrative Court concluded that the contribution of the Smartphone to the process of calculation, which was essentially the provision of details of time and distance, on the basis of which the servers then calculated the fare did not make the Smartphone a device for calculating the fare. It determined that ‘a device for recording time and distance is not a device for calculating a fare based on time and distance’ (para 20).

The court also considered some of the policy behind the various private hire vehicle licensing systems, and it identifi ed the purpose in London as having been ‘to bring the hitherto unlicensed mini-cab trade in London within a licensed framework, to protect the public using the services of mini-cabs from a variety of mischiefs including unfi tness of the driver, the safety of the vehicle, and the absence of insurance’ (para 28). The court was also concerned that licensing minicabs should not lead the public to suppose that ‘mini-cabs or [private hire vehicles] were equivalent … to black cabs’ (para 28). Part of the purpose of the Uber and TfL approach was achieved by preventing minicabs plying for hire and using taximeters to calculate fares. In reaching its decision, the High Court ruled that the legislative purposes of the licensing regime were not harmed by the operation of the Uber network.

Comment: This case was essentially a dispute between existing providers of Hackney Carriage operations and private hire companies within London against what they saw as unfair competition and illegal activity, in order to regulate unlicensed minicab operators. The High Court took a pragmatic, and some would say modern, approach in looking behind the reasons for the application of this kind of operation in determining whether it complied with existing legislation. The court’s decision appears a sensible one, as it provides protection and uniform fare calculation for passengers who use the Uber service.