R (Uber London Ltd) v Transport for London [2018] EWCA Civ 1213
The Court of Appeal have ruled in favour of TfL’s requirement to impose a “Voice Contact Requirement” on all licensed operators in the capital.
In June 2016, Transport for London (TfL) made a number of regulatory changes to raise standards in London’s private hire industry and improve safety and convenience for customers.
This included the introduction of a requirement for London private hire vehicle (PHV) operators to make someone available for passengers to speak to during their hours of business and at all times during a journey if passengers want to make a complaint or discuss other matters relating to their booking (the Voice Contact Requirement).
Uber appealed the imposition of the Voice Contact Requirement arguing that the appeal should be dismissed referring the court to intended changes to Uber’s customer contact handling systems and processes.
Thomas Elvidge, Uber’s general manager for the UK and Ireland, had provided evidence that, in the UK, it had been decided to introduce a “click-to-call” function in the app for passengers and drivers.
Uber said that the function would take about six months to implement.
“We will need this time in order to put in place the technology, infrastructure and resources needed to do this in a way that is consistent with our target of a live voice response to safety-related issues within two minutes.”
This included hiring and training 150 support agents to manage the calls, and potentially setting up additional facilities.
The function would be available during a trip and at any other time.
The user would be connected instantly to an automated voice-based system which would ask the passenger to indicate the subject of the call so the issue could be handled appropriately.
TfL argued said that “sometimes there is no substitute for talking to a real live person”.
Arguing that the High Court got it wrong, TfL told Lady Justice Gloster, Lord Justice Patten and Lord Justice Floyd that it would be impractical to have a requirement confined to emergency situations.
It would carry risks of inappropriate use and would not achieve the customer level of protection which TfL sought.
It would forfeit the benefits of reassurance for passengers in non-emergency situations, increased confidence to travel for disabled and vulnerable passengers, and easier complaints access.
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Justice Mitting was wrong to rely on the distinction between an emergency requirement and the voice contact facility, which was not raised in the consultation or suggested as a less burdensome alternative by ULL. It accepted TfL’s evidence introduced on the appeal that an emergency requirement would not be practicable, would not achieve the same benefits, and would not necessarily be less burdensome. The Court of Appeal also held that, because the emergency requirement would not achieve the same benefits as the voice contact requirement (speed of response and customer comfort outside emergency situations), it was not a less burdensome alternative. It rejected ULL’s arguments that the benefits outside of emergency situations were negligible.
The Court of Appeal also rejected ULL’s argument that, because the voice contact requirement was not imposed on taxis, it was disproportionate. It held that taxis and private hire vehicles were not relevantly in comparable positions. The Court of Appeal also held that, although justifications for the requirement had evolved from the consultation, their substance was considered during the consultations. Accordingly, the Court did not accord them less weight as ex post reasoning.
TfL have now written to a all its operators to advise them that the Voice Contact Requirement will come into force on the 1st of October 2018.
UK TAXI DRIVER WITH A LEGAL ISSUE? GIVE US A CALL: 020 7060 1775
