Reading BC v Ali [2019]
Share
Reading BC v Ali [2019] EWHC 200 (Admin) revolves around an appeal by Reading Borough Council against a decision acquitting Mudassar Ali, an Uber driver, of charges related to plying for hire without the appropriate licence.
Ali was accused of plying for hire contrary to Section 45 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. The crux of the case was whether Ali's presence in Reading, while registered and licensed with Transport for London (TfL) but not locally licensed by the appellant, constituted an illegal plying for hire. Ali's defence hinged on the argument that his vehicle was only available for hire through the Uber app, and that there was no solicitation or attempt to gain custom directly from the street.
The court recounted the factual background as established by the Senior District Judge. Ali's vehicle was lawfully parked on Kings Road in Reading, with no markings indicating it was available for hire. The only identifying marks were small TfL roundels. During the relevant times, Ali was waiting for bookings to be made via the Uber app, which is used by passengers to locate and book private hire vehicles. Two licensing officers, acting as Uber customers, identified Ali's car on the app, approached him, and found he was waiting for a booking. The prosecution contended that the mere display of Ali's vehicle on the app constituted an invitation to hire and therefore amounted to plying for hire.
The appeal focused on several legal questions, such as whether the display of Ali's vehicle on the Uber app could be considered an invitation to book his car, and whether such a display could be considered an invitation to hire any Uber vehicle in the vicinity. The court was also asked to consider whether the Chief Magistrate erred in her decision by giving weight to factors such as the absence of traditional taxi markings, the fact that the transaction was app-based, and that the vehicle was not directly available for hailing on the street.
The court examined the statutory framework governing hackney carriages and private hire vehicles, including the relevant provisions of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. The legal test for plying for hire involves determining whether a vehicle is exhibited with an implied invitation for members of the public to use it, and whether it solicits custom without a prior contract. Key cases like Sales v Lake [1922] and Cogley v Sherwood [1959] were discussed, which emphasise that a vehicle must be visibly exhibited and make a present offer to the public for hire, either expressly or impliedly.
The High Court agreed with the Chief Magistrate's findings that Ali's vehicle did not have any distinctive markings or behaviour indicative of soliciting custom. It did not bear the hallmarks of a vehicle plying for hire, such as advertising or positioning near a taxi stand. The court noted that while the Uber app displayed the presence of the vehicle, this did not equate to the vehicle being exhibited for the purposes of plying for hire, as described in past case law.
The judgment therefore concluded that the Chief Magistrate had correctly applied the legal principles and had not erred in her findings. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the view that the mere presence of a vehicle on a ride-hailing app does not amount to plying for hire if it is not actively soliciting passengers from the street.
Ali was accused of plying for hire contrary to Section 45 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. The crux of the case was whether Ali's presence in Reading, while registered and licensed with Transport for London (TfL) but not locally licensed by the appellant, constituted an illegal plying for hire. Ali's defence hinged on the argument that his vehicle was only available for hire through the Uber app, and that there was no solicitation or attempt to gain custom directly from the street.
The court recounted the factual background as established by the Senior District Judge. Ali's vehicle was lawfully parked on Kings Road in Reading, with no markings indicating it was available for hire. The only identifying marks were small TfL roundels. During the relevant times, Ali was waiting for bookings to be made via the Uber app, which is used by passengers to locate and book private hire vehicles. Two licensing officers, acting as Uber customers, identified Ali's car on the app, approached him, and found he was waiting for a booking. The prosecution contended that the mere display of Ali's vehicle on the app constituted an invitation to hire and therefore amounted to plying for hire.
The appeal focused on several legal questions, such as whether the display of Ali's vehicle on the Uber app could be considered an invitation to book his car, and whether such a display could be considered an invitation to hire any Uber vehicle in the vicinity. The court was also asked to consider whether the Chief Magistrate erred in her decision by giving weight to factors such as the absence of traditional taxi markings, the fact that the transaction was app-based, and that the vehicle was not directly available for hailing on the street.
The court examined the statutory framework governing hackney carriages and private hire vehicles, including the relevant provisions of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. The legal test for plying for hire involves determining whether a vehicle is exhibited with an implied invitation for members of the public to use it, and whether it solicits custom without a prior contract. Key cases like Sales v Lake [1922] and Cogley v Sherwood [1959] were discussed, which emphasise that a vehicle must be visibly exhibited and make a present offer to the public for hire, either expressly or impliedly.
The High Court agreed with the Chief Magistrate's findings that Ali's vehicle did not have any distinctive markings or behaviour indicative of soliciting custom. It did not bear the hallmarks of a vehicle plying for hire, such as advertising or positioning near a taxi stand. The court noted that while the Uber app displayed the presence of the vehicle, this did not equate to the vehicle being exhibited for the purposes of plying for hire, as described in past case law.
The judgment therefore concluded that the Chief Magistrate had correctly applied the legal principles and had not erred in her findings. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the view that the mere presence of a vehicle on a ride-hailing app does not amount to plying for hire if it is not actively soliciting passengers from the street.
