Reading BC v Ali [2019] EWHC 200 (Admin)

Court: High Court

Facts: Mudassar Ali, an Uber driver licensed with Transport for London (TfL), was accused by Reading Borough Council of plying for hire without a local license. The case questioned whether Ali’s presence in Reading, with his vehicle displayed on the Uber app but without local licensing or visible signage, constituted an illegal plying for hire under Section 45 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.

Issue: Whether Ali's use of the Uber app to receive bookings constituted plying for hire, given that his vehicle was not marked with taxi signage and was not soliciting passengers directly from the street.

Held: The High Court upheld the decision of the Chief Magistrate, affirming that Ali’s vehicle did not constitute plying for hire. The court found that the Uber app's display of the vehicle did not amount to an invitation to hire under the legal definition of plying for hire. The absence of traditional taxi markings and the fact that the vehicle was not actively seeking customers from the street were critical factors in this decision.

Key Judicial Statement: The court emphasized that the statutory definition of plying for hire requires a vehicle to be actively exhibited with an invitation to hire, either expressly or impliedly. The mere presence of a vehicle on an app did not meet this threshold as there was no direct solicitation from the street.

💡Leveluplaw: The case clarified that the modern practice of ride-hailing through apps does not equate to traditional plying for hire. It highlighted that for a vehicle to be considered as plying for hire, there must be direct and visible solicitation of customers, not merely the presence of the vehicle on an app. This decision reflects the need to adapt historical legal principles to contemporary practices in the transportation industry.