Discussion:
Uber and the VAT man
(too old to reply)
Recliner
2019-05-19 10:31:27 UTC
Permalink
Uber may be forced to levy VAT on its fares, with a potentially huge
retrospective bill.

<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/passengers-face-fare-hikes-after-uber-accused-of-taking-taxman-for-1bn-ride-vt8ht588w?shareToken=10f759b81ee2f668f9176a2c196d3f65>
Roland Perry
2019-05-19 10:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Uber may be forced to levy VAT on its fares, with a potentially huge
retrospective bill.
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/passengers-face-fare-hikes-after-ube
r-accused-of-taking-taxman-for-1bn-ride-vt8ht588w?shareToken=10f759b81ee
2f668f9176a2c196d3f65>
Even if it turns out that individual drivers don't have to charge their
passengers VAT, what about the bills (for use of the platform) from Uber
to the drivers?[1] Although if those turned out to be taxable, it's only
Uber that would stand the retrospective loss. Future commission rates
(and hence fares for users) would likely rise though.

Would it mitigate that (a little anyway) if Uber decided to base itself
in Luxembourg like some other online platforms do?

[1] Or is that what they refer to as "gross bookings"?
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-05-19 11:27:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Uber may be forced to levy VAT on its fares, with a potentially huge
retrospective bill.
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/passengers-face-fare-hikes-after-ube
r-accused-of-taking-taxman-for-1bn-ride-vt8ht588w?shareToken=10f759b81ee
2f668f9176a2c196d3f65>
Even if it turns out that individual drivers don't have to charge their
passengers VAT, what about the bills (for use of the platform) from Uber
to the drivers?[1] Although if those turned out to be taxable, it's only
Uber that would stand the retrospective loss. Future commission rates
(and hence fares for users) would likely rise though.
Yes, almost certainly.
Post by Roland Perry
Would it mitigate that (a little anyway) if Uber decided to base itself
in Luxembourg like some other online platforms do?
I think they still have to charge and pay UK VAT for trade services in
the UK. Even Uber can't claim they're delivering the service in
Luxembourg. If you, as a private individual, buy something mail order
from Luxembourg, they have to charge you VAT; only if you provide a
VAT number do they not have to do so.
Post by Roland Perry
[1] Or is that what they refer to as "gross bookings"?
Roland Perry
2019-05-19 11:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Would it mitigate that (a little anyway) if Uber decided to base itself
in Luxembourg like some other online platforms do?
I think they still have to charge and pay UK VAT for trade services in
the UK. Even Uber can't claim they're delivering the service in
Luxembourg. If you, as a private individual, buy something mail order
from Luxembourg, they have to charge you VAT; only if you provide a
VAT number do they not have to do so.
It seems that there was a rule change in Jan 2015 which essentially
blocked the Luxembourg-loophole for VAT.
--
Roland Perry
Someone Somewhere
2019-05-21 10:26:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Would it mitigate that (a little anyway) if Uber decided to base itself
in Luxembourg like some other online platforms do?
I think they still have to charge and pay UK VAT for trade services in
the UK. Even Uber can't claim they're delivering the service in
Luxembourg. If you, as a private individual, buy something mail order
from Luxembourg, they have to charge you VAT; only if you provide a
VAT number do they not have to do so.
It seems that there was a rule change in Jan 2015 which essentially
blocked the Luxembourg-loophole for VAT.
Presumably though the service is provided by the driver and is
un-VATable (unless they earn more than £85k or whatever), but the
service provided by the platform (ie the server) could actually be
abroad and hence charged at their VAT rate? As the service of matching
user to platform doesn't result in any physical delivery of product then
it could legitimately be said to happen offshore. (I'm not a VAT
expert, but I gueess this is the sort of thing they are basing it off).
Roland Perry
2019-05-21 10:45:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Would it mitigate that (a little anyway) if Uber decided to base itself
in Luxembourg like some other online platforms do?
I think they still have to charge and pay UK VAT for trade services in
the UK. Even Uber can't claim they're delivering the service in
Luxembourg. If you, as a private individual, buy something mail order
from Luxembourg, they have to charge you VAT; only if you provide a
VAT number do they not have to do so.
It seems that there was a rule change in Jan 2015 which essentially
blocked the Luxembourg-loophole for VAT.
Presumably though the service is provided by the driver and is
un-VATable (unless they earn more than £85k or whatever), but the
service provided by the platform (ie the server) could actually be
abroad and hence charged at their VAT rate?
The change in 2015 was to make the supplier charge the VAT rate in the
customer's [in this case the Uber driver's] country.
--
Roland Perry
JNugent
2019-05-21 11:48:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Would it mitigate that (a little anyway) if Uber decided to base itself
in Luxembourg like some other online platforms do?
I think they still have to charge and pay UK VAT for trade services in
the UK. Even Uber can't claim they're delivering the service in
Luxembourg. If you, as a private individual, buy something mail order
from Luxembourg, they have to charge you VAT; only if you provide a
VAT number do they not have to do so.
It seems that there was a rule change in Jan 2015 which essentially
blocked the Luxembourg-loophole for VAT.
Presumably though the service is provided by the driver and is
un-VATable (unless they earn more than £85k or whatever), but the
service provided by the platform (ie the server) could actually be
abroad and hence charged at their VAT rate?  As the service of matching
user to platform doesn't result in any physical delivery of product then
it could legitimately be said to happen offshore.  (I'm not a VAT
expert, but I gueess this is the sort of thing they are basing it off).
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK), the
charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their charges in the
UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at 20% of the charge.
How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up to them, but all of it will
be liable to the tax if any of it is.
Robin
2019-05-21 12:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Would it mitigate that (a little anyway) if Uber decided to base itself
in Luxembourg like some other online platforms do?
I think they still have to charge and pay UK VAT for trade services in
the UK. Even Uber can't claim they're delivering the service in
Luxembourg. If you, as a private individual, buy something mail order
from Luxembourg, they have to charge you VAT; only if you provide a
VAT number do they not have to do so.
It seems that there was a rule change in Jan 2015 which essentially
blocked the Luxembourg-loophole for VAT.
Presumably though the service is provided by the driver and is
un-VATable (unless they earn more than £85k or whatever), but the
service provided by the platform (ie the server) could actually be
abroad and hence charged at their VAT rate?  As the service of
matching user to platform doesn't result in any physical delivery of
product then it could legitimately be said to happen offshore.  (I'm
not a VAT expert, but I gueess this is the sort of thing they are
basing it off).
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK), the
charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their charges in the
UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at 20% of the charge.
How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up to them, but all of it will
be liable to the tax if any of it is.
VAT was never my specialist subject but there are various
misunderstandings of the basics of how it works with intra-EU
transnational business to business supplies. Uber set out quite clearly
how they operate here:

https://www.uber.com/en-GB/drive/tax-information/

Note especially the reference to the fact that it's an Uber company in
the Netherlands that supplies the service and to the "reverse charge"
scheme.

All this is contentious. But the UK's not the only EU country that's
accepted it. As have others fiscs. See eg

https://library.croneri.co.uk/acmag_185098
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Roland Perry
2019-05-21 12:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Would it mitigate that (a little anyway) if Uber decided to base itself
in Luxembourg like some other online platforms do?
I think they still have to charge and pay UK VAT for trade services in
the UK. Even Uber can't claim they're delivering the service in
Luxembourg. If you, as a private individual, buy something mail order
from Luxembourg, they have to charge you VAT; only if you provide a
VAT number do they not have to do so.
It seems that there was a rule change in Jan 2015 which essentially
blocked the Luxembourg-loophole for VAT.
Presumably though the service is provided by the driver and is
un-VATable (unless they earn more than £85k or whatever), but the
service provided by the platform (ie the server) could actually be
abroad and hence charged at their VAT rate?  As the service of
matching user to platform doesn't result in any physical delivery of
product then it could legitimately be said to happen offshore.  (I'm
not a VAT expert, but I gueess this is the sort of thing they are basing it off).
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK), the
charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their charges in the
UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at 20% of the charge.
How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up to them, but all of it
will be liable to the tax if any of it is.
The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-05-21 14:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Would it mitigate that (a little anyway) if Uber decided to base itself
in Luxembourg like some other online platforms do?
I think they still have to charge and pay UK VAT for trade services in
the UK. Even Uber can't claim they're delivering the service in
Luxembourg. If you, as a private individual, buy something mail order
from Luxembourg, they have to charge you VAT; only if you provide a
VAT number do they not have to do so.
It seems that there was a rule change in Jan 2015 which essentially
blocked the Luxembourg-loophole for VAT.
Presumably though the service is provided by the driver and is
un-VATable (unless they earn more than £85k or whatever), but the
service provided by the platform (ie the server) could actually be
abroad and hence charged at their VAT rate?  As the service of
matching user to platform doesn't result in any physical delivery of
product then it could legitimately be said to happen offshore.  (I'm
not a VAT expert, but I gueess this is the sort of thing they are basing it off).
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK), the
charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their charges in the
UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at 20% of the charge.
How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up to them, but all of it
will be liable to the tax if any of it is.
The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.
The question is what service Uber is providing to the passengers: a taxi
service or a booking service. Similarly, does it employ the drivers, or
just provide a booking service for them?
Roland Perry
2019-05-21 14:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.
The question is what service Uber is providing to the passengers: a taxi
service or a booking service.
I don't think the passengers get an itemised bill breaking out those two
components.
Post by Recliner
Similarly, does it employ the drivers, or just provide a booking
service for them?
That's famously something being looked a very closely for employment law
reasons.

The question which then arises is "if they are employees, is the
passenger's bill entirely from Uber, and if so where's the VAT, given
Uber itself turns over more than £85k per annum".
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-05-21 15:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.
The question is what service Uber is providing to the passengers: a taxi
service or a booking service.
I don't think the passengers get an itemised bill breaking out those two
components.
Post by Recliner
Similarly, does it employ the drivers, or just provide a booking
service for them?
That's famously something being looked a very closely for employment law
reasons.
The question which then arises is "if they are employees, is the
passenger's bill entirely from Uber, and if so where's the VAT, given
Uber itself turns over more than £85k per annum".
Exactly. And that's why Uber may have a billion pound back tax bill.
JNugent
2019-05-21 16:02:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.
The question is what service Uber is providing to the passengers: a taxi
service or a booking service.
I don't think the passengers get an itemised bill breaking out those two
components.
Post by Recliner
Similarly, does it employ the drivers, or just provide a booking
service for them?
That's famously something being looked a very closely for employment law
reasons.
The question which then arises is "if they are employees, is the
passenger's bill entirely from Uber, and if so where's the VAT, given
Uber itself turns over more than £85k per annum".
Exactly. And that's why Uber may have a billion pound back tax bill.
Quite right too.

They can't have it both ways, having the exclusive billing contract with
the customer *and* not turning over £85,000 pa.
Roland Perry
2019-05-21 16:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.
The question is what service Uber is providing to the passengers: a taxi
service or a booking service.
I don't think the passengers get an itemised bill breaking out those two
components.
Post by Recliner
Similarly, does it employ the drivers, or just provide a booking
service for them?
That's famously something being looked a very closely for employment law
reasons.
The question which then arises is "if they are employees, is the
passenger's bill entirely from Uber, and if so where's the VAT, given
Uber itself turns over more than £85k per annum".
Exactly. And that's why Uber may have a billion pound back tax bill.
Potentially?
--
Roland Perry
JNugent
2019-05-21 16:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Would it mitigate that (a little anyway) if Uber decided to base itself
in Luxembourg like some other online platforms do?
I think they still have to charge and pay UK VAT for trade services in
the UK. Even Uber can't claim they're delivering the service in
Luxembourg. If you, as a private individual, buy something mail order
from Luxembourg, they have to charge you VAT; only if you provide a
VAT number do they not have to do so.
It seems that there was a rule change in Jan 2015 which essentially
blocked the Luxembourg-loophole for VAT.
 Presumably though the service is provided by the driver and is
un-VATable (unless they earn more than £85k or whatever), but the
service provided by the platform (ie the server) could actually be
abroad and hence charged at their VAT rate?  As the service of
matching  user to platform doesn't result in any physical delivery of
product then  it could legitimately be said to happen offshore.  (I'm
not a VAT  expert, but I gueess this is the sort of thing they are
basing it off).
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK), the
charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their charges in the
UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at 20% of the charge.
How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up to them, but all of it
will be liable to the tax if any of it is.
The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.
That's taxi-driving for you.

With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers are not
taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's sole contract
is with Uber itself. And they turn over more than £85,000 pa.
Roland Perry
2019-05-21 17:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK),
the charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their charges
in the UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at 20% of the
charge. How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up to them, but
all of it will be liable to the tax if any of it is.
The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.
That's taxi-driving for you.
With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers are
not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's sole
contract is with Uber itself.
Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your money
to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.
Post by JNugent
And they turn over more than £85,000 pa.
Yes, that's one of the main ingredients.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-05-21 22:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK),
the charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their charges
in the UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at 20% of the
charge. How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up to them, but
all of it will be liable to the tax if any of it is.
The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.
That's taxi-driving for you.
With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers are
not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's sole
contract is with Uber itself.
Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your money
to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.
These arguments usually come down to how much independence the supposedly
self-employed drivers have, and the answer usually is, "very little". Uber
enforces standards, which of course helps the customers, but means that the
drivers have very little freedom. For example, you talked about
"successfully bidding drivers", which suggests that they have the right to
set their own prices, but they don't.
Roland Perry
2019-05-22 08:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK),
the charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their charges
in the UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at 20% of the
charge. How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up to them, but
all of it will be liable to the tax if any of it is.
The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.
That's taxi-driving for you.
With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers are
not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's sole
contract is with Uber itself.
Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your money
to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.
These arguments usually come down to how much independence the supposedly
self-employed drivers have, and the answer usually is, "very little". Uber
enforces standards, which of course helps the customers, but means that the
drivers have very little freedom. For example, you talked about
"successfully bidding drivers", which suggests that they have the right to
set their own prices, but they don't.
They set their own availability (ie bid for doing a job they like the
look of, rather than one they don't), though. Which while I agree Uber's
drivers overall feel much more like employees than freelance
contractors, is one of the infamous tests.

Another is providing your own equipment, which I think Uber drivers do,
and also being able to substotute another worker. I'm unsighted as to
what Uber thinks about a driver "loaning" his account to a friend, who
acts as driver for the day, is.
--
Roland Perry
JNugent
2019-05-21 23:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK),
the  charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their charges
in the  UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at 20% of
the charge.  How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up to them,
but all of it  will be liable to the tax if any of it is.
 The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.
That's taxi-driving for you.
With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers are
not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's sole
contract is with Uber itself.
Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your money
to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.
You have more or less described what we might call a "traditional
minicab" (traditional since 1960, that is). The driver gets paid by the
passenger and the driver pays a commission or radio circuit rent to the
operator. The operator's turnover consists of the aggregate of the radio
rent commissions paid to them by the drivers.

But it definitely isn't what happens with Uber. There, the passenger
pays Uber, and Uber pays a part of the charge to the driver. It's 180
degrees the other way round from the Welbeck Minicab model.

*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one of
Uber's overheads.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
And they turn over more than £85,000 pa.
Yes, that's one of the main ingredients.
MissRiaElaine
2019-05-21 23:37:16 UTC
Permalink
On 22/05/2019 00:33, JNugent wrote:
[snip]
Post by JNugent
*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one of
Uber's overheads.
Which is why, among other reasons, that if I ever do use a taxi (rare,
except in emergencies) I will only ever use a black cab.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Roland Perry
2019-05-22 09:01:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK),
the  charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their
charges in the  UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at
20% of the charge.  How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up
to them, but all of it  will be liable to the tax if any of it is.
 The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit,
they can't charge their riders VAT.
That's taxi-driving for you.
With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers are
not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's sole
contract is with Uber itself.
Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your
money to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.
You have more or less described what we might call a "traditional
minicab" (traditional since 1960, that is). The driver gets paid by the
passenger and the driver pays a commission or radio circuit rent to the
operator. The operator's turnover consists of the aggregate of the
radio rent commissions paid to them by the drivers.
But it definitely isn't what happens with Uber. There, the passenger
pays Uber, and Uber pays a part of the charge to the driver.
Alternatively, the Uber pays [on paper] the whole charge to the driver,
but registers the fact that a commission is due, and at the end of the
day (or week or month or whatever their accounting period is) deducts
one from the other before handing over the *cash*.
Post by JNugent
It's 180 degrees the other way round from the Welbeck Minicab model.
*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one of
Uber's overheads.
As this is a railway group, is the turnover of a booking site like
Trainline the whole of the fares they sell, or just the what? 9%
commission they get paid.
--
Roland Perry
JNugent
2019-05-22 16:31:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK),
the  charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their
charges  in the  UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably
at 20% of  the charge.  How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is
up to them,  but all of it  will be liable to the tax if any of it
is.
 The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit,
they  can't charge their riders VAT.
That's taxi-driving for you.
With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers are
not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's sole
contract is with Uber itself.
 Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your
money  to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.
You have more or less described what we might call a "traditional
minicab" (traditional since 1960, that is). The driver gets paid by
the passenger and the driver pays a commission or radio circuit rent
to the operator. The operator's turnover consists of the aggregate of
the radio rent commissions paid to them by the drivers.
But it definitely isn't what happens with Uber. There, the passenger
pays Uber, and Uber pays a part of the charge to the driver.
Alternatively, the Uber pays [on paper] the whole charge to the driver,
but registers the fact that a commission is due, and at the end of the
day (or week or month or whatever their accounting period is) deducts
one from the other before handing over the *cash*.
Is that what happens?

My impression is that Uber's accounting model is open and available and
matches what I suggested. All of the turnover, irepective of how it is
subsequently disbursed to the accounts of drivers or to any other
recipient, is Uber's turnover.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
It's 180 degrees the other way round from the Welbeck Minicab model.
[The famous pioneer "minicab" firm which operated fleet and owner-driven
cars, but in whose business model, the drivers were paid in cash by the
passengers.]
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one
of Uber's overheads.
As this is a railway group, is the turnover of a booking site like
Trainline the whole of the fares they sell, or just the what? 9%
commission they get paid.
Uber do not get paid a commission of any percentage whatsoever. They pay
their drivers a commission / proportion / share of the turnover.

The only money the driver receives is from Uber. Even a tip if the
passenger decides to add one to Uber's charges.
Roland Perry
2019-05-24 15:12:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
On 21/05/2019 18:01, Roland Perry wrote:>>> JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the
UK), the  charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to
their charges  in the  UK, it will have to be paid to Uber,
presumably at 20% of  the charge.  How Uber divide up the charge
(ex-VAT) is up to them,  but all of it  will be liable to the tax if any of it is.
 The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit,
they  can't charge their riders VAT.
That's taxi-driving for you.
With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers
are not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's
sole contract is with Uber itself.
 Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your
money  to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.
You have more or less described what we might call a "traditional
minicab" (traditional since 1960, that is). The driver gets paid by
the passenger and the driver pays a commission or radio circuit rent
to the operator. The operator's turnover consists of the aggregate of
the radio rent commissions paid to them by the drivers.
But it definitely isn't what happens with Uber. There, the passenger
pays Uber, and Uber pays a part of the charge to the driver.
Alternatively, the Uber pays [on paper] the whole charge to the
driver, but registers the fact that a commission is due, and at the
end of the day (or week or month or whatever their accounting period
is) deducts one from the other before handing over the *cash*.
Is that what happens?
My impression is that Uber's accounting model is open and available and
matches what I suggested. All of the turnover, irepective of how it is
subsequently disbursed to the accounts of drivers or to any other
recipient, is Uber's turnover.
Does that mean Uber gets all of the "surge pricing", or does some get
fed through to the driver? From driver anecdotes I think they do get a
wedge (because they arrange their shifts to be available at such times).
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one
of Uber's overheads.
As this is a railway group, is the turnover of a booking site like
Trainline the whole of the fares they sell, or just the what? 9%
commission they get paid.
Uber do not get paid a commission of any percentage whatsoever. They
pay their drivers a commission / proportion / share of the turnover.
This page says they take 25% commission:

https://www.uber.com/en-GH/drive/resources/payments/
Post by JNugent
The only money the driver receives is from Uber. Even a tip if the
passenger decides to add one to Uber's charges.
Less perhaps a small handling fee from Uber - the 25% mentioned above?
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-05-24 15:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
On 21/05/2019 18:01, Roland Perry wrote:>>> JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the
UK), the  charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to
their charges  in the  UK, it will have to be paid to Uber,
presumably at 20% of  the charge.  How Uber divide up the charge
(ex-VAT) is up to them,  but all of it  will be liable to the tax if any of it is.
 The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit,
they  can't charge their riders VAT.
That's taxi-driving for you.
With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers
are not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's
sole contract is with Uber itself.
 Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your
money  to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.
You have more or less described what we might call a "traditional
minicab" (traditional since 1960, that is). The driver gets paid by
the passenger and the driver pays a commission or radio circuit rent
to the operator. The operator's turnover consists of the aggregate of
the radio rent commissions paid to them by the drivers.
But it definitely isn't what happens with Uber. There, the passenger
pays Uber, and Uber pays a part of the charge to the driver.
Alternatively, the Uber pays [on paper] the whole charge to the
driver, but registers the fact that a commission is due, and at the
end of the day (or week or month or whatever their accounting period
is) deducts one from the other before handing over the *cash*.
Is that what happens?
My impression is that Uber's accounting model is open and available and
matches what I suggested. All of the turnover, irepective of how it is
subsequently disbursed to the accounts of drivers or to any other
recipient, is Uber's turnover.
Does that mean Uber gets all of the "surge pricing", or does some get
fed through to the driver? From driver anecdotes I think they do get a
wedge (because they arrange their shifts to be available at such times).
Yes, the surge pricing is designed to encourage more drivers to be
available to cope with increased demand. So the drivers certainly get a big
chunk of the higher price, perhaps even more than of the normal charge.
After all, if Uber is simply a matching service, its costs don't double if
demands are higher.

As an aside, we know Uber subsidises drivers in some cases, paying them
more than it collects from the customers. I think this again suggests that
the drivers are closer to being employees than independent contractors
merely linked through Uber's matching service.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one
of Uber's overheads.
As this is a railway group, is the turnover of a booking site like
Trainline the whole of the fares they sell, or just the what? 9%
commission they get paid.
Uber do not get paid a commission of any percentage whatsoever. They
pay their drivers a commission / proportion / share of the turnover.
https://www.uber.com/en-GH/drive/resources/payments/
Post by JNugent
The only money the driver receives is from Uber. Even a tip if the
passenger decides to add one to Uber's charges.
Less perhaps a small handling fee from Uber - the 25% mentioned above?
From what I've read, Uber passes on the whole tip to the driver.
Roland Perry
2019-05-24 15:49:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
My impression is that Uber's accounting model is open and available and
matches what I suggested. All of the turnover, irepective of how it is
subsequently disbursed to the accounts of drivers or to any other
recipient, is Uber's turnover.
Does that mean Uber gets all of the "surge pricing", or does some get
fed through to the driver? From driver anecdotes I think they do get a
wedge (because they arrange their shifts to be available at such times).
Yes, the surge pricing is designed to encourage more drivers to be
available to cope with increased demand. So the drivers certainly get a big
chunk of the higher price, perhaps even more than of the normal charge.
After all, if Uber is simply a matching service, its costs don't double if
demands are higher.
As an aside, we know Uber subsidises drivers in some cases, paying them
more than it collects from the customers. I think this again suggests that
the drivers are closer to being employees than independent contractors
merely linked through Uber's matching service.
Now that model *would* break the "driver gets passenger payment less
25%" model. Unless it's done via some kind of defined top-up, or
'guaranteed minimum' payment; in which case the driver might still get
the 75%, but plus a separate incentive payment from Uber.

There's also something complicated going on when Uber hands out "free
trip vouchers" to passengers, so the passenger isn't paying any cash.
But that could be rolled into such a minimum payment scheme.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one
of Uber's overheads.
As this is a railway group, is the turnover of a booking site like
Trainline the whole of the fares they sell, or just the what? 9%
commission they get paid.
Uber do not get paid a commission of any percentage whatsoever. They
pay their drivers a commission / proportion / share of the turnover.
https://www.uber.com/en-GH/drive/resources/payments/
Post by JNugent
The only money the driver receives is from Uber. Even a tip if the
passenger decides to add one to Uber's charges.
Less perhaps a small handling fee from Uber - the 25% mentioned above?
From what I've read, Uber passes on the whole tip to the driver.
And so they should. Although a small fee to reflect the extra credit
card commission wouldn't be outrageous.
--
Roland Perry
JNugent
2019-05-24 17:05:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
On 21/05/2019 18:01, Roland Perry wrote:>>> JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the
UK),  the  charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to
their  charges  in the  UK, it will have to be paid to Uber,
presumably  at 20% of  the charge.  How Uber divide up the
charge (ex-VAT) is  up to them,  but all of it  will be liable
to the tax if any of it  is.
 The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit,
they  can't charge their riders VAT.
That's taxi-driving for you.
With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers
are  not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's
sole  contract is with Uber itself.
 Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your
money  to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.
You have more or less described what we might call a "traditional
minicab" (traditional since 1960, that is). The driver gets paid by
the passenger and the driver pays a commission or radio circuit rent
to the operator. The operator's turnover consists of the aggregate
of the radio rent commissions paid to them by the drivers.
But it definitely isn't what happens with Uber. There, the passenger
pays Uber, and Uber pays a part of the charge to the driver.
 Alternatively, the Uber pays [on paper] the whole charge to the
driver,  but registers the fact that a commission is due, and at the
end of the  day (or week or month or whatever their accounting period
is) deducts  one from the other before handing over the *cash*.
Is that what happens?
My impression is that Uber's accounting model is open and available
and matches what I suggested. All of the turnover, irepective of how
it is subsequently disbursed to the accounts of drivers or to any
other recipient, is Uber's turnover.
Does that mean Uber gets all of the "surge pricing", or does some get
fed through to the driver? From driver anecdotes I think they do get a
wedge (because they arrange their shifts to be available at such times).
How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question of
what their turnover is.

Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages or
overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if turnover
changes.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one
of Uber's overheads.
 As this is a railway group, is the turnover of a booking site like
Trainline the whole of the fares they sell, or just the what? 9%
commission they get paid.
Uber do not get paid a commission of any percentage whatsoever. They
pay their drivers a commission / proportion / share of the turnover.
https://www.uber.com/en-GH/drive/resources/payments/
That might be how they explain it. It is how a "normal" minicab company
works.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
The only money the driver receives is from Uber. Even a tip if the
passenger decides to add one to Uber's charges.
Less perhaps a small handling fee from Uber - the 25% mentioned above?
See above.
Roland Perry
2019-05-24 20:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question of
what their turnover is.
It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75% to the
drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.
Post by JNugent
Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages or
overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if turnover
changes.
The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and the
drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring vehicles,
paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking platform.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-05-24 20:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question of
what their turnover is.
It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75% to the
drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.
Post by JNugent
Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages or
overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if turnover
changes.
The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and the
drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring vehicles,
paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking platform.
I think it's a bit more than that. For example, Uber has to vet its
drivers, something else that suggests that it's more than just a booking
platform.

<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uber-drivers-forced-to-have-new-criminal-record-check-zf6ctss07?shareToken=3fc2ded3581dd027f86d8376f2e0346d>
Roland Perry
2019-05-26 17:07:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question of
what their turnover is.
It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75% to the
drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.
Post by JNugent
Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages or
overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if turnover
changes.
The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and the
drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring vehicles,
paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking platform.
I think it's a bit more than that. For example, Uber has to vet its
drivers, something else that suggests that it's more than just a booking
platform.
Getting drivers through a credential check when joining the scheme is
one of the components of running the booking platform, just like doing
the billing. Those aspects are driver-facing, whereas the public mainly
sees the passenger-facing ones.
--
Roland Perry
JNugent
2019-05-25 10:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question of
what their turnover is.
It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75% to the
drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.
How?

They are still turning the money over, no matter how it is sliced up
after receipt.

It goes through their bank account. It is all part of the turnover.
That's what turnover *means*. They could pay the drivers 99% of the
turnover, but it's still turnover.

If it were otherwise, any small enterprise on the verge of the
compulsory VAT registration turnover quantum could, by sleight of hand,
deduct the amounts they are liable to pay out for wages (that's the
biggy), business rates, fuel duties and VAT, national insurance, etc,
and claim not to be turning over enough to be forced to register.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages or
overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if
turnover changes.
The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and the
drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring vehicles,
paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking platform.
The amount of their overheads isn't important. The principle *is*.

If they want to avoid VAT liability on turnover, they need to let the
drivers collect the fares (like a real private hire operation) and avoid
making it part of their revenue.
Roland Perry
2019-05-26 17:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question of
what their turnover is.
It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75% to
the drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.
How?
They are still turning the money over, no matter how it is sliced up
after receipt.
It goes through their bank account. It is all part of the turnover.
That's what turnover *means*. They could pay the drivers 99% of the
turnover, but it's still turnover.
If you look at a company like TheTrainline, the turnover they quote is
just the commission from the Train Operators (and some fixed transaction
fees from customers) [in the region of £150 million], not the total of
all the fares people buy [in the region of £2 billion].
Post by JNugent
If it were otherwise, any small enterprise on the verge of the
compulsory VAT registration turnover quantum could, by sleight of hand,
deduct the amounts they are liable to pay out for wages (that's the
biggy), business rates, fuel duties and VAT, national insurance, etc,
and claim not to be turning over enough to be forced to register.
You are fatally confusing gross profit margin with turnover.
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages or
overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if
turnover changes.
The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and
the drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring
vehicles, paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking
platform.
The amount of their overheads isn't important. The principle *is*.
If they want to avoid VAT liability on turnover, they need to let the
drivers collect the fares (like a real private hire operation) and
avoid making it part of their revenue.
I don't think credit card companies include the total value of things
purchased with their cards in their turnover. But they do collect the
money from buyers, deduct a commission, they pay the balance to
vendors. And like no doubt Uber, they don't pay the whole amount out and
then send an invoice asking for the commission back whenever the trader
feels like it.
--
Roland Perry
JNugent
2019-05-26 21:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question of
what their turnover is.
 It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75% to
the  drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.
How?
They are still turning the money over, no matter how it is sliced up
after receipt.
It goes through their bank account. It is all part of the turnover.
That's what turnover *means*. They could pay the drivers 99% of the
turnover, but it's still turnover.
If you look at a company like TheTrainline, the turnover they quote is
just the commission from the Train Operators (and some fixed transaction
fees from customers) [in the region of £150 million], not the total of
all the fares people buy [in the region of £2 billion].
Post by JNugent
If it were otherwise, any small enterprise on the verge of the
compulsory VAT registration turnover quantum could, by sleight of
hand, deduct the amounts they are liable to pay out for wages (that's
the biggy), business rates, fuel duties and VAT, national insurance,
etc, and claim not to be turning over enough to be forced to register.
You are fatally confusing gross profit margin with turnover.
That is exactly what I am not doing.

Turnover is turnover. Profit, whether gross or net, is something other
than turnover and somewhat less in size.

Profit is not the deciding factor when it comes to VAT registration.
Only turnover counts.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages or
overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if
turnover changes.
 The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and
the  drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring
vehicles,  paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking
platform.
The amount of their overheads isn't important. The principle *is*.
If they want to avoid VAT liability on turnover, they need to let the
drivers collect the fares (like a real private hire operation) and
avoid making it part of their revenue.
I don't think credit card companies include the total value of things
purchased with their cards in their turnover. But they do collect the
money from buyers, deduct a commission, they pay the balance to
vendors. And like no doubt Uber, they don't pay the whole amount out and
then send an invoice asking for the commission back whenever the trader
feels like it.
I don't now about you, but I pay money to my credit card issuers.

They don't pay money to me.

They pay out money *for* me, but really, it's about as bad an analogy as
you could have chosen. The relationship structure is completely
different from that of Uber. In order to get it to look similar, you'd
have to posit the credit card issuer getting my income paid into their
bank account instead of mine and then letting me have some, but not all,
of it.
Roland Perry
2019-05-28 14:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question
of what their turnover is.
 It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75%
to the  drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.
How?
They are still turning the money over, no matter how it is sliced up
after receipt.
It goes through their bank account. It is all part of the turnover.
That's what turnover *means*. They could pay the drivers 99% of the
turnover, but it's still turnover.
If you look at a company like TheTrainline, the turnover they quote
is just the commission from the Train Operators (and some fixed
transaction fees from customers) [in the region of £150 million], not
the total of all the fares people buy [in the region of £2 billion].
Post by JNugent
If it were otherwise, any small enterprise on the verge of the
compulsory VAT registration turnover quantum could, by sleight of
hand, deduct the amounts they are liable to pay out for wages (that's
the biggy), business rates, fuel duties and VAT, national insurance,
etc, and claim not to be turning over enough to be forced to register.
You are fatally confusing gross profit margin with turnover.
That is exactly what I am not doing.
Turnover is turnover. Profit, whether gross or net, is something other
than turnover and somewhat less in size.
Profit is not the deciding factor when it comes to VAT registration.
Only turnover counts.
The turnover for someone like Uber or TheTrainline being the commission
element, not including the money that passes straight through to the
drivers and Train Companies respectively.
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages
or overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if
turnover changes.
 The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and
the  drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring
vehicles,  paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking
The amount of their overheads isn't important. The principle *is*.
If they want to avoid VAT liability on turnover, they need to let
the drivers collect the fares (like a real private hire operation)
and avoid making it part of their revenue.
I don't think credit card companies include the total value of things
purchased with their cards in their turnover. But they do collect the
money from buyers, deduct a commission, they pay the balance to
vendors. And like no doubt Uber, they don't pay the whole amount out
and then send an invoice asking for the commission back whenever the
trader feels like it.
I don't now about you, but I pay money to my credit card issuers.
That's what I wrote. They collect the money you pay to them, and channel
it through to the merchants.
Post by JNugent
They don't pay money to me.
I didn't suggest they did. They pay money to merchants. But that's money
from you to the merchant, and isn't part of the card issuer's turnover.
Post by JNugent
They pay out money *for* me,
Just like Uber pays money *for* the passengers, to the drivers (well,
that's the accounting model we are exploring).
Post by JNugent
but really, it's about as bad an analogy as you could have chosen. The
relationship structure is completely different from that of Uber. In
order to get it to look similar, you'd have to posit the credit card
issuer getting my income paid into their bank account instead of mine
and then letting me have some, but not all, of it.
I's not about the flow at your end, but at the driver's end.

Yes, the card issuer pays money it has derived from you, into the
merchant's bank account, while deducting a small commission (my
financial model here is that they don't pay it all up front, and then
expect the merchant to pay them back the commission later).
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-05-28 15:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question
of what their turnover is.
 It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75%
to the  drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.
How?
They are still turning the money over, no matter how it is sliced up
after receipt.
It goes through their bank account. It is all part of the turnover.
That's what turnover *means*. They could pay the drivers 99% of the
turnover, but it's still turnover.
If you look at a company like TheTrainline, the turnover they quote
is just the commission from the Train Operators (and some fixed
transaction fees from customers) [in the region of £150 million], not
the total of all the fares people buy [in the region of £2 billion].
Post by JNugent
If it were otherwise, any small enterprise on the verge of the
compulsory VAT registration turnover quantum could, by sleight of
hand, deduct the amounts they are liable to pay out for wages (that's
the biggy), business rates, fuel duties and VAT, national insurance,
etc, and claim not to be turning over enough to be forced to register.
You are fatally confusing gross profit margin with turnover.
That is exactly what I am not doing.
Turnover is turnover. Profit, whether gross or net, is something other
than turnover and somewhat less in size.
Profit is not the deciding factor when it comes to VAT registration.
Only turnover counts.
The turnover for someone like Uber or TheTrainline being the commission
element, not including the money that passes straight through to the
drivers and Train Companies respectively.
Yes, Uber refers to Gross Bookings and Revenue. The latter slipped to about
21.3% of the former in Q4 2018.

"Compared to the entire fiscal year of 2017, Uber’s gross bookings
increased 45 percent, to $50 billion in 2018. That resulted in a GAAP
revenue increase of 43 percent, from 2017 to $11.3 billion. Losses also
improved (decreased) from $2.2 billion in adjusted EBITDA losses in 2017 to
$1.8 billion in 2018. "

<https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/15/uber-reports-3b-in-q4-revenue-rising-operating-losses/>
Roland Perry
2019-05-28 16:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
The turnover for someone like Uber or TheTrainline being the commission
element, not including the money that passes straight through to the
drivers and Train Companies respectively.
Yes, Uber refers to Gross Bookings and Revenue. The latter slipped to about
21.3% of the former in Q4 2018.
"Compared to the entire fiscal year of 2017, Uber’s gross bookings
increased 45 percent, to $50 billion in 2018. That resulted in a GAAP
revenue increase of 43 percent, from 2017 to $11.3 billion. Losses also
improved (decreased) from $2.2 billion in adjusted EBITDA losses in 2017 to
$1.8 billion in 2018. "
One wonders what they are spending all their revenue on (I suppose the
report might have details).

TheTrainline is doing much better on their approx 8% commission, than
Uber is on their 21%
Post by Recliner
<https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/15/uber-reports-3b-in-q4-revenue-rising-operating-losses/>
Several of my tech-savvy friends having nothing but swearwords for the
Oath privacy policy. So for now I'm joining in their embargo of their
site.
--
Roland Perry
MissRiaElaine
2019-05-28 18:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Several of my tech-savvy friends having nothing but swearwords for the
Oath privacy policy. So for now I'm joining in their embargo of their site.
Ditto. Won't touch any site they have an interest in. I had quite a few
photos up on Flickr up until that lot took over.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
Jarle Hammen Knudsen
2019-05-28 19:16:59 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 28 May 2019 19:20:03 +0100, MissRiaElaine
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Roland Perry
Several of my tech-savvy friends having nothing but swearwords for the
Oath privacy policy. So for now I'm joining in their embargo of their site.
Ditto. Won't touch any site they have an interest in. I had quite a few
photos up on Flickr up until that lot took over.
Flickr has passed to SmugMug.
--
jhk
Recliner
2019-05-28 20:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jarle Hammen Knudsen
On Tue, 28 May 2019 19:20:03 +0100, MissRiaElaine
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Roland Perry
Several of my tech-savvy friends having nothing but swearwords for the
Oath privacy policy. So for now I'm joining in their embargo of their site.
Ditto. Won't touch any site they have an interest in. I had quite a few
photos up on Flickr up until that lot took over.
Flickr has passed to SmugMug.
Very bumpily…
JNugent
2019-05-29 01:31:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question
of  what their turnover is.
 It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75%
to  the  drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25%
commission.
How?
They are still turning the money over, no matter how it is sliced up
after receipt.
It goes through their bank account. It is all part of the turnover.
That's what turnover *means*. They could pay the drivers 99% of the
turnover, but it's still turnover.
 If you look at a company like TheTrainline, the turnover they quote
is  just the commission from the Train Operators (and some fixed
transaction  fees from customers) [in the region of £150 million],
not the total of  all the fares people buy [in the region of £2
billion].
Post by JNugent
If it were otherwise, any small enterprise on the verge of the
compulsory VAT registration turnover quantum could, by sleight of
hand, deduct the amounts they are liable to pay out for wages
(that's the biggy), business rates, fuel duties and VAT, national
insurance, etc, and claim not to be turning over enough to be forced
to register.
 You are fatally confusing gross profit margin with turnover.
That is exactly what I am not doing.
Turnover is turnover. Profit, whether gross or net, is something other
than turnover and somewhat less in size.
Profit is not the deciding factor when it comes to VAT registration.
Only turnover counts.
The turnover for someone like Uber or TheTrainline being the commission
element, not including the money that passes straight through to the
drivers and Train Companies respectively.
If Uber only received a commission or circuit fee from the driver, that
would be correct and I would certainly not argue with your proposition.

But how can that correct be in the circumstance where they also turn
over the whole of the fare collected from the passenger (account-holder)
on the spot?
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages
or  overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if
turnover changes.
 The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and
the  drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring
vehicles,  paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking
The amount of their overheads isn't important. The principle *is*.
If they want to avoid VAT liability on turnover, they need to let
the  drivers collect the fares (like a real private hire operation)
and  avoid making it part of their revenue.
I don't think credit card companies include the total value of things
purchased with their cards in their turnover. But they do collect the
money from buyers, deduct a commission, they pay the balance to
vendors. And like no doubt Uber, they don't pay the whole amount out
and  then send an invoice asking for the commission back whenever the
trader  feels like it.
I don't now about you, but I pay money to my credit card issuers.
That's what I wrote. They collect the money you pay to them, and channel
it through to the merchants.
Post by JNugent
They don't pay money to me.
I didn't suggest they did. They pay money to merchants. But that's money
from you to the merchant, and isn't part of the card issuer's turnover.
Indeed. They are financial trading entities operating as registered /
recognised banks licenced by the state. They lend money (part of their
capital assets) and only the fees and charges they receive are their
turnover.

Does that apply to Uber?
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
They pay out money *for* me,
Just like Uber pays money *for* the passengers, to the drivers (well,
that's the accounting model we are exploring).
Post by JNugent
but really, it's about as bad an analogy as you could have chosen. The
relationship structure is completely different from that of Uber. In
order to get it to look similar, you'd have to posit the credit card
issuer getting my income paid into their bank account instead of mine
and then letting me have some, but not all, of it.
I's not about the flow at your end, but at the driver's end.
Yes, the card issuer pays money it has derived from you, into the
merchant's bank account, while deducting a small commission (my
financial model here is that they don't pay it all up front, and then
expect the merchant to pay them back the commission later).
Roland Perry
2019-05-30 14:41:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
The turnover for someone like Uber or TheTrainline being the
commission element, not including the money that passes straight
through to the drivers and Train Companies respectively.
If Uber only received a commission or circuit fee from the driver, that
would be correct and I would certainly not argue with your proposition.
But how can that correct be in the circumstance where they also turn
over the whole of the fare collected from the passenger
(account-holder) on the spot?
Do they, and send the driver an invoice for their commission later (end
of the month perhaps)?

That would nudge them a bit closer to being perceived by the passenger
as a cab company, rather than a booking agent for the driver.
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
I don't think credit card companies include the total value of
things purchased with their cards in their turnover. But they do
collect the money from buyers, deduct a commission, they pay the balance to
vendors. And like no doubt Uber, they don't pay the whole amount
out and  then send an invoice asking for the commission back
whenever the trader  feels like it.
I don't now about you, but I pay money to my credit card issuers.
That's what I wrote. They collect the money you pay to them, and
channel it through to the merchants.
Post by JNugent
They don't pay money to me.
I didn't suggest they did. They pay money to merchants. But that's
money from you to the merchant, and isn't part of the card issuer's
turnover.
Indeed. They are financial trading entities operating as registered /
recognised banks licenced by the state. They lend money (part of their
capital assets) and only the fees and charges they receive are their
turnover.
They lend money to the buyer (at zero interest rate if they pay it off
on demand). They don't lend money to the merchant.
Post by JNugent
Does that apply to Uber?
And TheTrainline, does the train company get paid for the ticket
straight away, or does TTL have 30day (or whatever) credit with them
all. Whatever the answer, their turnover in their published accounts is
just the commission/fee element.
--
Roland Perry
JNugent
2019-05-30 15:43:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
 The turnover for someone like Uber or TheTrainline being the
commission  element, not including the money that passes straight
through to the  drivers and Train Companies respectively.
If Uber only received a commission or circuit fee from the driver,
that would be correct and I would certainly not argue with your
proposition.
But how can that correct be in the circumstance where they also turn
over the whole of the fare collected from the passenger
(account-holder) on the spot?
Do they, and send the driver an invoice for their commission later (end
of the month perhaps)?
I assume your "Do they..." was a request for confirmation of what I said.

Yes, Uber do collect the whole of the fare.

I don't know what form their subsequent internal accounting procedures
take, but if it were their practice to issue invoices to the driver, I
strongly suspect that we would have heard about that by now.
Post by Roland Perry
That would nudge them a bit closer to being perceived by the passenger
as a cab company, rather than a booking agent for the driver.
The passenger's view isn't important anyway, but even so, it's hard to
see how "knowing" that Uber issue invoices to drivers [if that were the
case, for which there is no evidence] would affect passengers' opinion
of Uber.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
I don't think credit card companies include the total value of
things  purchased with their cards in their turnover. But they do
collect the  money from buyers, deduct a commission, they pay the
balance to
vendors. And like no doubt Uber, they don't pay the whole amount
out  and  then send an invoice asking for the commission back
whenever the  trader  feels like it.
I don't now about you, but I pay money to my credit card issuers.
 That's what I wrote. They collect the money you pay to them, and
channel  it through to the merchants.
Post by JNugent
They don't pay money to me.
 I didn't suggest they did. They pay money to merchants. But that's
money  from you to the merchant, and isn't part of the card issuer's
turnover.
Indeed. They are financial trading entities operating as registered /
recognised banks licenced by the state. They lend money (part of their
capital assets) and only the fees and charges they receive are their
turnover.
They lend money to the buyer (at zero interest rate if they pay it off
on demand). They don't lend money to the merchant.
Post by JNugent
Does that apply to Uber?
And TheTrainline, does the train company get paid for the ticket
straight away, or does TTL have 30day (or whatever) credit with them
all. Whatever the answer, their turnover in their published accounts is
just the commission/fee element.
But they are not Uber. And Uber are going to have to argue that the
money they turn over is not part of their turnover.

Just to be clear about this: if an individual self-employed taxi-driver
(or private hire driver) turned over £85,000 and were honest enough to
report the fact, they would be forced by law to register for VAT and to
charge it on top of the fare.

But turning over £1808 a week (assuming five weeks' non-activity per
annum) would be a tall order. Not so for Uber.
Recliner
2019-05-30 16:01:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
 The turnover for someone like Uber or TheTrainline being the
commission  element, not including the money that passes straight
through to the  drivers and Train Companies respectively.
If Uber only received a commission or circuit fee from the driver,
that would be correct and I would certainly not argue with your
proposition.
But how can that correct be in the circumstance where they also turn
over the whole of the fare collected from the passenger
(account-holder) on the spot?
Do they, and send the driver an invoice for their commission later (end
of the month perhaps)?
I assume your "Do they..." was a request for confirmation of what I said.
Yes, Uber do collect the whole of the fare.
I don't know what form their subsequent internal accounting procedures
take, but if it were their practice to issue invoices to the driver, I
strongly suspect that we would have heard about that by now.
There's no need to speculate: Uber operates a weekly billing cycle,
Mon-Mon, and issues statements to drivers on Tuesdays. Their net money,
after User's fee, is then transferred to their accounts on Wednesday.

<https://www.ridester.com/uber-payment/amp/>

<https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/how-do-uber-drivers-get-paid-and-how-to-resolve-payment-errors/>
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
That would nudge them a bit closer to being perceived by the passenger
as a cab company, rather than a booking agent for the driver.
The passenger's view isn't important anyway, but even so, it's hard to
see how "knowing" that Uber issue invoices to drivers [if that were the
case, for which there is no evidence] would affect passengers' opinion
of Uber.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
I don't think credit card companies include the total value of
things  purchased with their cards in their turnover. But they do
collect the  money from buyers, deduct a commission, they pay the
balance to
vendors. And like no doubt Uber, they don't pay the whole amount
out  and  then send an invoice asking for the commission back
whenever the  trader  feels like it.
I don't now about you, but I pay money to my credit card issuers.
 That's what I wrote. They collect the money you pay to them, and
channel  it through to the merchants.
Post by JNugent
They don't pay money to me.
 I didn't suggest they did. They pay money to merchants. But that's
money  from you to the merchant, and isn't part of the card issuer's
turnover.
Indeed. They are financial trading entities operating as registered /
recognised banks licenced by the state. They lend money (part of their
capital assets) and only the fees and charges they receive are their
turnover.
They lend money to the buyer (at zero interest rate if they pay it off
on demand). They don't lend money to the merchant.
Post by JNugent
Does that apply to Uber?
And TheTrainline, does the train company get paid for the ticket
straight away, or does TTL have 30day (or whatever) credit with them
all. Whatever the answer, their turnover in their published accounts is
just the commission/fee element.
But they are not Uber. And Uber are going to have to argue that the
money they turn over is not part of their turnover.
Just to be clear about this: if an individual self-employed taxi-driver
(or private hire driver) turned over £85,000 and were honest enough to
report the fact, they would be forced by law to register for VAT and to
charge it on top of the fare.
But turning over £1808 a week (assuming five weeks' non-activity per
annum) would be a tall order. Not so for Uber.
Tim Woodall
2019-05-30 16:26:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by JNugent
Yes, Uber do collect the whole of the fare.
I don't know what form their subsequent internal accounting procedures
take, but if it were their practice to issue invoices to the driver, I
strongly suspect that we would have heard about that by now.
There's no need to speculate: Uber operates a weekly billing cycle,
Mon-Mon, and issues statements to drivers on Tuesdays. Their net money,
after User's fee, is then transferred to their accounts on Wednesday.
<https://www.ridester.com/uber-payment/amp/>
<https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/how-do-uber-drivers-get-paid-and-how-to-resolve-payment-errors/>
Doesn't this hinge on whether uber are agent or principal?

Here's a related case that went all the way to the court of appeal.
https://www.kwm.com/en/uk/knowledge/insights/principal-or-agent-the-debate-over-online-travel-agents-20160101

I don't think the billing matters. If I appoint you as my agent to
collect monies due to me and agree to pay you 10% of whatever you
collect then your turnover is the 10% and mine is 100% regardless of
whether, and how, the 10% ends up in my account and the 90% ends up in
mine.
Tim Woodall
2019-05-30 16:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Woodall
Post by Recliner
Post by JNugent
Yes, Uber do collect the whole of the fare.
I don't know what form their subsequent internal accounting procedures
take, but if it were their practice to issue invoices to the driver, I
strongly suspect that we would have heard about that by now.
There's no need to speculate: Uber operates a weekly billing cycle,
Mon-Mon, and issues statements to drivers on Tuesdays. Their net money,
after User's fee, is then transferred to their accounts on Wednesday.
<https://www.ridester.com/uber-payment/amp/>
<https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/how-do-uber-drivers-get-paid-and-how-to-resolve-payment-errors/>
Doesn't this hinge on whether uber are agent or principal?
Here's a related case that went all the way to the court of appeal.
https://www.kwm.com/en/uk/knowledge/insights/principal-or-agent-the-debate-over-online-travel-agents-20160101
I don't think the billing matters. If I appoint you as my agent to
collect monies due to me and agree to pay you 10% of whatever you
collect then your turnover is the 10% and mine is 100% regardless of
whether, and how, the 10% ends up in my account and the 90% ends up in
mine.
https://thevatconsultancy.com/med-hotels-wins-vat-travel-case-at-the-supreme-court/

Went all the way to the supreme court - and was reversed at each stage!
Recliner
2019-05-30 19:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Woodall
Post by Recliner
Post by JNugent
Yes, Uber do collect the whole of the fare.
I don't know what form their subsequent internal accounting procedures
take, but if it were their practice to issue invoices to the driver, I
strongly suspect that we would have heard about that by now.
There's no need to speculate: Uber operates a weekly billing cycle,
Mon-Mon, and issues statements to drivers on Tuesdays. Their net money,
after User's fee, is then transferred to their accounts on Wednesday.
<https://www.ridester.com/uber-payment/amp/>
<https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/how-do-uber-drivers-get-paid-and-how-to-resolve-payment-errors/>
Doesn't this hinge on whether uber are agent or principal?
Here's a related case that went all the way to the court of appeal.
https://www.kwm.com/en/uk/knowledge/insights/principal-or-agent-the-debate-over-online-travel-agents-20160101
I don't think the billing matters. If I appoint you as my agent to
collect monies due to me and agree to pay you 10% of whatever you
collect then your turnover is the 10% and mine is 100% regardless of
whether, and how, the 10% ends up in my account and the 90% ends up in
mine.
Which would confirm Uber's interpretation, meaning that it doesn't need to
pay VAT, or if it does, only on its net amount, around 22% of the gross
billings.

Uber certainly books and reports 'Gross billings' and 'Revenue', where the
latter is its net take after paying the drivers.
Roland Perry
2019-05-31 07:24:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Woodall
Doesn't this hinge on whether uber are agent or principal?
Here's a related case that went all the way to the court of appeal.
https://www.kwm.com/en/uk/knowledge/insights/principal-or-agent-the-debate-over-online-travel-agents-20160101
That's saying MedHotels wasn't acting simply as a conduit for
orders/money but was doing much more, being a self-contained
holiday-business with payments to hotels being imply one of its
overheads.
Post by Tim Woodall
I don't think the billing matters. If I appoint you as my agent to
collect monies due to me and agree to pay you 10% of whatever you
collect then your turnover is the 10% and mine is 100% regardless of
whether, and how, the 10% ends up in my account and the 90% ends up in
mine.
Yes, TheTrainline is acting as agent for the TOCs, and their turnover is
only the 10% [well, 8% actually].

TheTrainline isn't a tour operator, in the sense of buying lots of
London-Manchester Open Returns off Virgin, and then hoping customers
will turn up and buy them. It's just a real-time conduit for orders.

Similarly, Uber doesn't pre-buy driver-hours (or driver-miles) from the
cabbies, and then hope it can sell them. It's just a real-time conduit
for orders.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2019-05-31 07:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Tim Woodall
Doesn't this hinge on whether uber are agent or principal?
Here's a related case that went all the way to the court of appeal.
https://www.kwm.com/en/uk/knowledge/insights/principal-or-agent-the-deb
ate-over-online-travel-agents-20160101
That's saying MedHotels wasn't acting simply as a conduit for
orders/money but was doing much more, being a self-contained
holiday-business with payments to hotels being imply
simply
Post by Roland Perry
one of its overheads.
Post by Tim Woodall
I don't think the billing matters. If I appoint you as my agent to
collect monies due to me and agree to pay you 10% of whatever you
collect then your turnover is the 10% and mine is 100% regardless of
whether, and how, the 10% ends up in my account and the 90% ends up in
mine.
Yes, TheTrainline is acting as agent for the TOCs, and their turnover
is only the 10% [well, 8% actually].
TheTrainline isn't a tour operator, in the sense of buying lots of
London-Manchester Open Returns off Virgin, and then hoping customers
will turn up and buy them. It's just a real-time conduit for orders.
Similarly, Uber doesn't pre-buy driver-hours (or driver-miles) from the
cabbies, and then hope it can sell them. It's just a real-time conduit
for orders.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-06-01 10:25:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Tim Woodall
Doesn't this hinge on whether uber are agent or principal?
Here's a related case that went all the way to the court of appeal.
https://www.kwm.com/en/uk/knowledge/insights/principal-or-agent-the-debate-over-online-travel-agents-20160101
That's saying MedHotels wasn't acting simply as a conduit for
orders/money but was doing much more, being a self-contained
holiday-business with payments to hotels being imply one of its
overheads.
Post by Tim Woodall
I don't think the billing matters. If I appoint you as my agent to
collect monies due to me and agree to pay you 10% of whatever you
collect then your turnover is the 10% and mine is 100% regardless of
whether, and how, the 10% ends up in my account and the 90% ends up in
mine.
Yes, TheTrainline is acting as agent for the TOCs, and their turnover is
only the 10% [well, 8% actually].
TheTrainline isn't a tour operator, in the sense of buying lots of
London-Manchester Open Returns off Virgin, and then hoping customers
will turn up and buy them. It's just a real-time conduit for orders.
Similarly, Uber doesn't pre-buy driver-hours (or driver-miles) from the
cabbies, and then hope it can sell them. It's just a real-time conduit
for orders.
And now there's another contender, prepared to make even bigger losses in
the quest for market share:
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rival-app-kapten-aims-to-drive-uber-off-the-road-as-cab-price-war-begins-ql50hf2d3?shareToken=ae520e4dc8d61cbc54da17360bf58ba6>

This story mentions that Uber now takes a 35% commission from new drivers.
Roland Perry
2019-06-01 19:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
And now there's another contender, prepared to make even bigger losses in
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rival-app-kapten-aims-to-drive-uber-off-the-road-as-cab-price-war-begins-ql50hf2d3?shareToken=ae520e4dc8d6
1cbc54da17360bf58ba6>
This story mentions that Uber now takes a 35% commission from new drivers.
£7.50/hr [Uber driver quoted] and providing your own car, doesn't seem
like it's worth it to me.

But I don't think Amazon delivery drivers have a much better deal.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-06-01 22:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
And now there's another contender, prepared to make even bigger losses in
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rival-app-kapten-aims-to-drive-uber-off-the-road-as-cab-price-war-begins-ql50hf2d3?shareToken=ae520e4dc8d6
1cbc54da17360bf58ba6>
This story mentions that Uber now takes a 35% commission from new drivers.
£7.50/hr [Uber driver quoted] and providing your own car, doesn't seem
like it's worth it to me.
That's why only immigrants will do it. It's probably a step up from a car
wash.
Post by Roland Perry
But I don't think Amazon delivery drivers have a much better deal.
No, I suppose not.

At least Amazon drivers now turn up in smart newish (unmarked) vans, not
beaten-up private cars, like some other couriers. They also don't seem to
have impossible delivery rounds, as they nearly always turn up on the right
day, and don't falsely pretend they've attempted a delivery when they
haven't (unlike Parcelforce).
Roland Perry
2019-06-02 07:45:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
And now there's another contender, prepared to make even bigger losses in
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rival-app-kapten-aims-to-drive-ube
r-off-the-road-as-cab-price-war-begins-ql50hf2d3?shareToken=ae520e4dc8d6
1cbc54da17360bf58ba6>
This story mentions that Uber now takes a 35% commission from new drivers.
£7.50/hr [Uber driver quoted] and providing your own car, doesn't seem
like it's worth it to me.
That's why only immigrants will do it. It's probably a step up from a car
wash.
Post by Roland Perry
But I don't think Amazon delivery drivers have a much better deal.
No, I suppose not.
At least Amazon drivers now turn up in smart newish (unmarked) vans,
That may be a regional thing. My Amazon deliveries are still mainly
arriving in a beaten up and rattley ten year old car-based diesel van.
But is unmarked (by signage, anyway)
Post by Recliner
not beaten-up private cars, like some other couriers. They also don't
seem to have impossible delivery rounds, as they nearly always turn up
on the right day, and don't falsely pretend they've attempted a
delivery when they haven't (unlike Parcelforce).
I expect the Amazon drivers are tracked by their handheld devices which
may forbid the issuing of a "missed delivery" unless they are physically
on the doorstep.

The "silently post a card through the letterbox" syndrome is different,
and is more likely to be caused by the driver discovering the parcel o
his delivery list isn't in his van after all, but he has to register an
attempted delivery to make his quota. Amazon is likely better at
ensuring the vans are properly loaded at the depot.
--
Roland Perry
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2019-06-02 08:14:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 08:45:55 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
And now there's another contender, prepared to make even bigger losses in
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rival-app-kapten-aims-to-drive-ube
r-off-the-road-as-cab-price-war-begins-ql50hf2d3?shareToken=ae520e4dc8d6
1cbc54da17360bf58ba6>
This story mentions that Uber now takes a 35% commission from new drivers.
£7.50/hr [Uber driver quoted] and providing your own car, doesn't seem
like it's worth it to me.
That's why only immigrants will do it. It's probably a step up from a car
wash.
Post by Roland Perry
But I don't think Amazon delivery drivers have a much better deal.
No, I suppose not.
At least Amazon drivers now turn up in smart newish (unmarked) vans,
That may be a regional thing. My Amazon deliveries are still mainly
arriving in a beaten up and rattley ten year old car-based diesel van.
But is unmarked (by signage, anyway)
Post by Recliner
not beaten-up private cars, like some other couriers. They also don't
seem to have impossible delivery rounds, as they nearly always turn up
on the right day, and don't falsely pretend they've attempted a
delivery when they haven't (unlike Parcelforce).
I expect the Amazon drivers are tracked by their handheld devices which
may forbid the issuing of a "missed delivery" unless they are physically
on the doorstep.
The "silently post a card through the letterbox" syndrome is different,
and is more likely to be caused by the driver discovering the parcel o
his delivery list isn't in his van after all, but he has to register an
attempted delivery to make his quota. Amazon is likely better at
ensuring the vans are properly loaded at the depot.
That problem is easily solved by visiting a shop and buying the goods there.
When you have a full time job you can't wait in for some oik in a van to show
up sometime between 8am-8pm so end up collecting from the delivery office or
depot anyway. Whats the point?
Roland Perry
2019-06-02 09:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
£7.50/hr [Uber driver quoted] and providing your own car, doesn't seem
like it's worth it to me.
That's why only immigrants will do it. It's probably a step up from a car
wash.
Post by Roland Perry
But I don't think Amazon delivery drivers have a much better deal.
No, I suppose not.
At least Amazon drivers now turn up in smart newish (unmarked) vans,
That may be a regional thing. My Amazon deliveries are still mainly
arriving in a beaten up and rattley ten year old car-based diesel van.
But is unmarked (by signage, anyway)
Post by Recliner
not beaten-up private cars, like some other couriers. They also don't
seem to have impossible delivery rounds, as they nearly always turn up
on the right day, and don't falsely pretend they've attempted a
delivery when they haven't (unlike Parcelforce).
I expect the Amazon drivers are tracked by their handheld devices which
may forbid the issuing of a "missed delivery" unless they are physically
on the doorstep.
The "silently post a card through the letterbox" syndrome is different,
and is more likely to be caused by the driver discovering the parcel o
his delivery list isn't in his van after all, but he has to register an
attempted delivery to make his quota. Amazon is likely better at
ensuring the vans are properly loaded at the depot.
That problem is easily solved by visiting a shop and buying the goods there.
Not really, even not-that-local shops don't have most of the things I
buy online. Let alone the range of choice, or open Sundays.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
When you have a full time job you can't wait in for some oik in a van to show
up sometime between 8am-8pm so end up collecting from the delivery office or
depot anyway. Whats the point?
We have neighbours, and they take parcels in. Other stuff fits through
the letterbox. Larger things I tend to specify "Click and Collect", so
can fetch them as easily as if that store had the stuff on the shelves
(which it never does).
--
Roland Perry
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2019-06-02 15:51:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 10:25:48 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
That problem is easily solved by visiting a shop and buying the goods there.
Not really, even not-that-local shops don't have most of the things I
buy online. Let alone the range of choice, or open Sundays.
Unless you're buying dilithium for a warp drive you're building in your
shed I'd be rather surprised if you couldn't find it in a shop.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
When you have a full time job you can't wait in for some oik in a van to show
up sometime between 8am-8pm so end up collecting from the delivery office or
depot anyway. Whats the point?
We have neighbours, and they take parcels in. Other stuff fits through
Yeah, and then when you go and collect them the neighbours are out or, as
happened to my wife a few years back, they'd gone on holiday the same day and
she had to wait a week to get her parcel. Also we've stopped accepting parcels
for a certain neighbour who seems to order something every week, we're not the
bloody post office.
Roland Perry
2019-06-03 11:06:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 10:25:48 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
That problem is easily solved by visiting a shop and buying the goods there.
Not really, even not-that-local shops don't have most of the things I
buy online. Let alone the range of choice, or open Sundays.
Unless you're buying dilithium for a warp drive you're building in your
shed I'd be rather surprised if you couldn't find it in a shop.
The example which for me was a tipping point involved black cup-hooks.

Several shops (including ones with only seasonal DIY sections such as
Sainsbury's) as well as regular hardware stores, pound-stores and so on
had either chrome or white, or both. None had black. It doesn't help if
I can buy chrome cup-hooks in five shops, but black ones in none.

It's also a challenge to get spare parts, even from franchised outlets.
A few years ago I needed a new glass turntable for my Panasonic
Microwave oven, and by some miracle [do you have one nearby?] there was
a Panasonic dealer in my High Street.

They sent me packing, on the grounds that all they really wanted to sell
me was a new flat-screen TV.

A year or two previously I was "forced" to buy a Panasonic laptop by
mail order from a dealership in I think Cornwall, because it was the
only one in the whole country which had availability.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
When you have a full time job you can't wait in for some oik in a van to show
up sometime between 8am-8pm so end up collecting from the delivery office or
depot anyway. Whats the point?
We have neighbours, and they take parcels in. Other stuff fits through
Yeah, and then when you go and collect them the neighbours are out or, as
happened to my wife a few years back, they'd gone on holiday the same day and
she had to wait a week to get her parcel.
Obviously the relationships with your neighbours have broken down,
otherwise situations like that wouldn't happen.
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Also we've stopped accepting parcels for a certain neighbour who seems
to order something every week, we're not the bloody post office.
I'm happy to accept parcels that regularly for a neighbour who I know
will claim it as soon as they arrive back home an hour or two later. Not
so much for neighbours with a track record of waiting for several days.
--
Roland Perry
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2019-06-03 11:20:49 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 12:06:40 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Yeah, and then when you go and collect them the neighbours are out or, as
happened to my wife a few years back, they'd gone on holiday the same day and
she had to wait a week to get her parcel.
Obviously the relationships with your neighbours have broken down,
otherwise situations like that wouldn't happen.
They broke down long before that. The problem is that these delivery guys
seem to think everyone is on good terms with their neighbour when it could
be a golden opportunity for said neighbour to screw you over.
Graeme Wall
2019-06-03 11:30:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 12:06:40 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Yeah, and then when you go and collect them the neighbours are out or, as
happened to my wife a few years back, they'd gone on holiday the same day and
she had to wait a week to get her parcel.
Obviously the relationships with your neighbours have broken down,
otherwise situations like that wouldn't happen.
They broke down long before that. The problem is that these delivery guys
seem to think everyone is on good terms with their neighbour when it could
be a golden opportunity for said neighbour to screw you over.
Why am I not surprised that Neil has trouble with his neighbours!
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
JNugent
2019-06-02 13:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 08:45:55 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
And now there's another contender, prepared to make even bigger losses in
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rival-app-kapten-aims-to-drive-ube
r-off-the-road-as-cab-price-war-begins-ql50hf2d3?shareToken=ae520e4dc8d6
1cbc54da17360bf58ba6>
This story mentions that Uber now takes a 35% commission from new drivers.
£7.50/hr [Uber driver quoted] and providing your own car, doesn't seem
like it's worth it to me.
That's why only immigrants will do it. It's probably a step up from a car
wash.
Post by Roland Perry
But I don't think Amazon delivery drivers have a much better deal.
No, I suppose not.
At least Amazon drivers now turn up in smart newish (unmarked) vans,
That may be a regional thing. My Amazon deliveries are still mainly
arriving in a beaten up and rattley ten year old car-based diesel van.
But is unmarked (by signage, anyway)
Post by Recliner
not beaten-up private cars, like some other couriers. They also don't
seem to have impossible delivery rounds, as they nearly always turn up
on the right day, and don't falsely pretend they've attempted a
delivery when they haven't (unlike Parcelforce).
I expect the Amazon drivers are tracked by their handheld devices which
may forbid the issuing of a "missed delivery" unless they are physically
on the doorstep.
The "silently post a card through the letterbox" syndrome is different,
and is more likely to be caused by the driver discovering the parcel o
his delivery list isn't in his van after all, but he has to register an
attempted delivery to make his quota. Amazon is likely better at
ensuring the vans are properly loaded at the depot.
That problem is easily solved by visiting a shop and buying the goods there.
When you have a full time job you can't wait in for some oik in a van to show
up sometime between 8am-8pm so end up collecting from the delivery office or
depot anyway. Whats the point?
The difficulty comes in several parts. The first is finding a local shop
that stocks that DVD box set (or whatever) you want. The second is
finding it at an acceptable price, with the third being all the hassle
deliberately inflicted on people buying or collecting items at shops,
with punitive parking charges and shopping streets often not even
allowing traffic into them, etc.

A week or two back, I ordered one of those little adaptors which
converts a car's 12v port into two USB sockets (for power purposes only,
of course). I could have just picked one up at the local sub-PO, believe
it or not. But there, it was £6.99. On Amazon, it was £1.99 and having
been ordered at around 01:00, it arrived at around 15:00 the same day.

Local authorities who think they are being cute by preventing business
from being conducted are often the first to decry the death of the High
Street.
David Cantrell
2019-06-03 14:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
The "silently post a card through the letterbox" syndrome is different,
and is more likely to be caused by the driver discovering the parcel o
his delivery list isn't in his van after all, but he has to register an
attempted delivery to make his quota. Amazon is likely better at
ensuring the vans are properly loaded at the depot.
That problem is easily solved by visiting a shop and buying the goods there.
When you have a full time job you can't wait in for some oik in a van to show
up sometime between 8am-8pm so end up collecting from the delivery office or
depot anyway. Whats the point?
Taking my most recent Amazon order as an example, I probably could find
all the items in shops within a few miles, but I'd have to visit them
all in turn and spend most of Saturday doing so. Better by far to have
Amazon deliver to me. If they try to deliver while I'm out I can tell
them what day to try again (I can make sure that I'm working at home on
that day) or I can make one trip to their depot to pick everything up,
and then I can spend Saturday doing something better with my time like
cricket.

In practice, for most stuff I have them deliver to me at work, I only
have really bulky stuff delivered to me at home.
--
David Cantrell
Recliner
2019-06-02 08:43:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
And now there's another contender, prepared to make even bigger losses in
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rival-app-kapten-aims-to-drive-ube
r-off-the-road-as-cab-price-war-begins-ql50hf2d3?shareToken=ae520e4dc8d6
1cbc54da17360bf58ba6>
This story mentions that Uber now takes a 35% commission from new drivers.
£7.50/hr [Uber driver quoted] and providing your own car, doesn't seem
like it's worth it to me.
That's why only immigrants will do it. It's probably a step up from a car
wash.
Post by Roland Perry
But I don't think Amazon delivery drivers have a much better deal.
No, I suppose not.
At least Amazon drivers now turn up in smart newish (unmarked) vans,
That may be a regional thing. My Amazon deliveries are still mainly
arriving in a beaten up and rattley ten year old car-based diesel van.
But is unmarked (by signage, anyway)
Mine come from Hemel Hempstead.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
not beaten-up private cars, like some other couriers. They also don't
seem to have impossible delivery rounds, as they nearly always turn up
on the right day, and don't falsely pretend they've attempted a
delivery when they haven't (unlike Parcelforce).
I expect the Amazon drivers are tracked by their handheld devices which
may forbid the issuing of a "missed delivery" unless they are physically
on the doorstep.
Yes, very likely. They certainly track them in real time, and so can you,
as they show them on a map when they're under ten deliveries away, and tell
you how many more they have to do before getting to you.
Post by Roland Perry
The "silently post a card through the letterbox" syndrome is different,
and is more likely to be caused by the driver discovering the parcel o
his delivery list isn't in his van after all, but he has to register an
attempted delivery to make his quota. Amazon is likely better at
ensuring the vans are properly loaded at the depot.
I've had more than one Parcelforce 'delivery' where no delivery was
attempted, and no postcard through the door. But on their website, they
claimed that a delivery had been attempted, and the parcel had then been
taken to the local Post Office. My guess is that the driver was running
late, and just dropped all the remaining parcels off there.
Roland Perry
2019-06-02 09:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
And now there's another contender, prepared to make even bigger losses in
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rival-app-kapten-aims-to-drive-ube
r-off-the-road-as-cab-price-war-begins-ql50hf2d3?shareToken=ae520e4dc8d6
1cbc54da17360bf58ba6>
This story mentions that Uber now takes a 35% commission from new drivers.
£7.50/hr [Uber driver quoted] and providing your own car, doesn't seem
like it's worth it to me.
That's why only immigrants will do it. It's probably a step up from a car
wash.
Post by Roland Perry
But I don't think Amazon delivery drivers have a much better deal.
No, I suppose not.
At least Amazon drivers now turn up in smart newish (unmarked) vans,
That may be a regional thing. My Amazon deliveries are still mainly
arriving in a beaten up and rattley ten year old car-based diesel van.
But is unmarked (by signage, anyway)
Mine come from Hemel Hempstead.
Didn't we decide here was a local hub too, it's quite a way for every
van driver on every delivery run to start from.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
not beaten-up private cars, like some other couriers. They also don't
seem to have impossible delivery rounds, as they nearly always turn up
on the right day, and don't falsely pretend they've attempted a
delivery when they haven't (unlike Parcelforce).
I expect the Amazon drivers are tracked by their handheld devices which
may forbid the issuing of a "missed delivery" unless they are physically
on the doorstep.
Yes, very likely. They certainly track them in real time, and so can you,
as they show them on a map when they're under ten deliveries away, and tell
you how many more they have to do before getting to you.
That varies a lot by courier.
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
The "silently post a card through the letterbox" syndrome is different,
and is more likely to be caused by the driver discovering the parcel o
his delivery list isn't in his van after all, but he has to register an
attempted delivery to make his quota. Amazon is likely better at
ensuring the vans are properly loaded at the depot.
I've had more than one Parcelforce 'delivery' where no delivery was
attempted, and no postcard through the door. But on their website, they
claimed that a delivery had been attempted, and the parcel had then been
taken to the local Post Office. My guess is that the driver was running
late, and just dropped all the remaining parcels off there.
Was that the local sub-post-office counter, or the sorting office?
Usually their missed delivery card gives an option of collection from
one or the other, or a re-delivery. Something the lack of a card is
circumventing.

If it had been left behind at the depot by mistake (or put in the wrong
van) then later sending it to a sub-post-office could be their attempt
to cover their tracks.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-06-02 09:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
And now there's another contender, prepared to make even bigger losses in
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rival-app-kapten-aims-to-drive-ube
r-off-the-road-as-cab-price-war-begins-ql50hf2d3?shareToken=ae520e4dc8d6
1cbc54da17360bf58ba6>
This story mentions that Uber now takes a 35% commission from new drivers.
£7.50/hr [Uber driver quoted] and providing your own car, doesn't seem
like it's worth it to me.
That's why only immigrants will do it. It's probably a step up from a car
wash.
Post by Roland Perry
But I don't think Amazon delivery drivers have a much better deal.
No, I suppose not.
At least Amazon drivers now turn up in smart newish (unmarked) vans,
That may be a regional thing. My Amazon deliveries are still mainly
arriving in a beaten up and rattley ten year old car-based diesel van.
But is unmarked (by signage, anyway)
Mine come from Hemel Hempstead.
Didn't we decide here was a local hub too, it's quite a way for every
van driver on every delivery run to start from.
All my deliveries are assembled and despatched from Hemel. If I'm scheduled
for early on the round, I can watch him speeding down the M1 and follow his
route through the suburbs, as he drops off the earlier parcels.

There are obviously other Amazon Logistics centres around the country.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
not beaten-up private cars, like some other couriers. They also don't
seem to have impossible delivery rounds, as they nearly always turn up
on the right day, and don't falsely pretend they've attempted a
delivery when they haven't (unlike Parcelforce).
I expect the Amazon drivers are tracked by their handheld devices which
may forbid the issuing of a "missed delivery" unless they are physically
on the doorstep.
Yes, very likely. They certainly track them in real time, and so can you,
as they show them on a map when they're under ten deliveries away, and tell
you how many more they have to do before getting to you.
That varies a lot by courier.
Not with Amazon, which is what I'm describing.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
The "silently post a card through the letterbox" syndrome is different,
and is more likely to be caused by the driver discovering the parcel o
his delivery list isn't in his van after all, but he has to register an
attempted delivery to make his quota. Amazon is likely better at
ensuring the vans are properly loaded at the depot.
I've had more than one Parcelforce 'delivery' where no delivery was
attempted, and no postcard through the door. But on their website, they
claimed that a delivery had been attempted, and the parcel had then been
taken to the local Post Office. My guess is that the driver was running
late, and just dropped all the remaining parcels off there.
Was that the local sub-post-office counter, or the sorting office?
Lately, with Parcelforce, it's been the local sub-post office. Royal Mail
deliveries (and they don't cheat) go back to the sorting office.
Post by Roland Perry
Usually their missed delivery card gives an option of collection from
one or the other, or a re-delivery. Something the lack of a card is
circumventing.
Royal Mail give the option, but not Parcelforce.
Post by Roland Perry
If it had been left behind at the depot by mistake (or put in the wrong
van) then later sending it to a sub-post-office could be their attempt
to cover their tracks.
Could be, but I think it's the driver(s) cheating.
JNugent
2019-05-31 23:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Woodall
Post by Recliner
Post by JNugent
Yes, Uber do collect the whole of the fare.
I don't know what form their subsequent internal accounting procedures
take, but if it were their practice to issue invoices to the driver, I
strongly suspect that we would have heard about that by now.
There's no need to speculate: Uber operates a weekly billing cycle,
Mon-Mon, and issues statements to drivers on Tuesdays. Their net money,
after User's fee, is then transferred to their accounts on Wednesday.
<https://www.ridester.com/uber-payment/amp/>
<https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/how-do-uber-drivers-get-paid-and-how-to-resolve-payment-errors/>
Doesn't this hinge on whether uber are agent or principal?
Here's a related case that went all the way to the court of appeal.
https://www.kwm.com/en/uk/knowledge/insights/principal-or-agent-the-debate-over-online-travel-agents-20160101
I don't think the billing matters. If I appoint you as my agent to
collect monies due to me and agree to pay you 10% of whatever you
collect then your turnover is the 10% and mine is 100% regardless of
whether, and how, the 10% ends up in my account and the 90% ends up in
mine.
"If".
Roland Perry
2019-05-31 07:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by JNugent
I don't know what form their subsequent internal accounting procedures
take, but if it were their practice to issue invoices to the driver, I
strongly suspect that we would have heard about that by now.
There's no need to speculate: Uber operates a weekly billing cycle,
Mon-Mon, and issues statements to drivers on Tuesdays. Their net money,
after User's fee, is then transferred to their accounts on Wednesday.
<https://www.ridester.com/uber-payment/amp/>
<https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/how-do-uber-drivers-get-paid-and-how-to-resolve-payment-errors/>
Thanks for digging that out. It is just as I expected.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-05-31 08:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by JNugent
I don't know what form their subsequent internal accounting procedures
take, but if it were their practice to issue invoices to the driver, I
strongly suspect that we would have heard about that by now.
There's no need to speculate: Uber operates a weekly billing cycle,
Mon-Mon, and issues statements to drivers on Tuesdays. Their net money,
after User's fee, is then transferred to their accounts on Wednesday.
<https://www.ridester.com/uber-payment/amp/>
<https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/how-do-uber-drivers-get-paid-and-how-to-resolve-payment-errors/>
Thanks for digging that out. It is just as I expected.
One thing I noticed from those is that Uber automatically repays drivers
for any tolls they have to pay when carrying fares. But not when empty. So
if a driver carried a fare across a toll bridge/tunnel, the toll is added
to the fare and repaid to the driver. But if the driver then has to return
home empty, they have to pay the fare out of their own pocket. So that is
like a self-employed cabbie, not an employee.
Recliner
2019-05-31 08:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by JNugent
I don't know what form their subsequent internal accounting procedures
take, but if it were their practice to issue invoices to the driver, I
strongly suspect that we would have heard about that by now.
There's no need to speculate: Uber operates a weekly billing cycle,
Mon-Mon, and issues statements to drivers on Tuesdays. Their net money,
after User's fee, is then transferred to their accounts on Wednesday.
<https://www.ridester.com/uber-payment/amp/>
<https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/how-do-uber-drivers-get-paid-and-how-to-resolve-payment-errors/>
Thanks for digging that out. It is just as I expected.
One thing I noticed from those is that Uber automatically repays drivers
for any tolls they have to pay when carrying fares. But not when empty. So
if a driver carried a fare across a toll bridge/tunnel, the toll is added
to the fare and repaid to the driver. But if the driver then has to return
home empty, they have to pay the fare
toll
Post by Recliner
out of their own pocket. So that is
like a self-employed cabbie, not an employee.
Roland Perry
2019-05-31 08:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
<https://www.ridester.com/uber-payment/amp/>
<https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/how-do-uber-drivers-get-paid-and-how-to-resolve-payment-errors/>
Thanks for digging that out. It is just as I expected.
One thing I noticed from those is that Uber automatically repays drivers
for any tolls they have to pay when carrying fares. But not when empty. So
if a driver carried a fare across a toll bridge/tunnel, the toll is added
to the fare and repaid to the driver. But if the driver then has to return
home empty, they have to pay the fare out of their own pocket. So that is
like a self-employed cabbie, not an employee.
How do they handle the increasingly common "kiss and fly" fees at
airports?
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
2019-05-31 09:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
<https://www.ridester.com/uber-payment/amp/>
<https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/how-do-uber-drivers-get-paid-and-how-to-resolve-payment-errors/>
Thanks for digging that out. It is just as I expected.
One thing I noticed from those is that Uber automatically repays drivers
for any tolls they have to pay when carrying fares. But not when empty. So
if a driver carried a fare across a toll bridge/tunnel, the toll is added
to the fare and repaid to the driver. But if the driver then has to return
home empty, they have to pay the fare out of their own pocket. So that is
like a self-employed cabbie, not an employee.
How do they handle the increasingly common "kiss and fly" fees at airports?
For practical purposes that is a toll incurred while carrying the
passenger(s) so they should get it repaid.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Roland Perry
2019-05-31 09:50:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
<https://www.ridester.com/uber-payment/amp/>
<https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/how-do-uber-drivers-get-paid-and-
how-to-resolve-payment-errors/>
Thanks for digging that out. It is just as I expected.
One thing I noticed from those is that Uber automatically repays drivers
for any tolls they have to pay when carrying fares. But not when empty. So
if a driver carried a fare across a toll bridge/tunnel, the toll is added
to the fare and repaid to the driver. But if the driver then has to return
home empty, they have to pay the fare out of their own pocket. So that is
like a self-employed cabbie, not an employee.
How do they handle the increasingly common "kiss and fly" fees at airports?
For practical purposes that is a toll incurred while carrying the
passenger(s) so they should get it repaid.
If they drop off and collect at the same time (within a window for which
there's a non-excruciating parking fee), do both passengers pay the
whole amount, each pay half, etc etc.

Given that Uber is supposed to quote a charge before you start the trip,
would they only be able to levy the absolute minimum fee on each
individual pax (rather than what it cost the driver)?
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
2019-05-31 11:32:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
<https://www.ridester.com/uber-payment/amp/>
<https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/how-do-uber-drivers-get-paid-and-
how-to-resolve-payment-errors/>
Thanks for digging that out. It is just as I expected.
One thing I noticed from those is that Uber automatically repays drivers
for any tolls they have to pay when carrying fares. But not when empty. So
if a driver carried a fare across a toll bridge/tunnel, the toll is added
to the fare and repaid to the driver. But if the driver then has to return
home empty, they have to pay the fare out of their own pocket. So that is
like a self-employed cabbie, not an employee.
 How do they handle the increasingly common "kiss and fly" fees at
airports?
For practical purposes that is a toll incurred while carrying the
passenger(s) so they should get it repaid.
If they drop off and collect at the same time (within a window for which
there's a non-excruciating parking fee), do both passengers pay the
whole amount, each pay half, etc etc.
Given that Uber is supposed to quote a charge before you start the trip,
would they only be able to levy the absolute minimum fee on each
individual pax (rather than what it cost the driver)?
Probably
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
JNugent
2019-05-31 23:26:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by JNugent
I don't know what form their subsequent internal accounting procedures
take, but if it were their practice to issue invoices to the driver, I
strongly suspect that we would have heard about that by now.
There's no need to speculate: Uber operates a weekly billing cycle,
Mon-Mon, and issues statements to drivers on Tuesdays. Their net money,
after User's fee, is then transferred to their accounts on Wednesday.
<https://www.ridester.com/uber-payment/amp/>
<https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/how-do-uber-drivers-get-paid-and-how-to-resolve-payment-errors/>
Thanks for digging that out. It is just as I expected.
One thing I noticed from those is that Uber automatically repays drivers
for any tolls they have to pay when carrying fares. But not when empty. So
if a driver carried a fare across a toll bridge/tunnel, the toll is added
to the fare and repaid to the driver. But if the driver then has to return
home empty, they have to pay the fare out of their own pocket. So that is
like a self-employed cabbie, not an employee.
Taxi fare schedules with which i am familiar specify that any toll on
the outward journey is doubled, so as to cater for the return journey.

So that's a difference where Uber is concerned, not a similarity.
Roland Perry
2019-06-01 06:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by JNugent
I don't know what form their subsequent internal accounting procedures
take, but if it were their practice to issue invoices to the driver, I
strongly suspect that we would have heard about that by now.
There's no need to speculate: Uber operates a weekly billing cycle,
Mon-Mon, and issues statements to drivers on Tuesdays. Their net money,
after User's fee, is then transferred to their accounts on Wednesday.
<https://www.ridester.com/uber-payment/amp/>
<https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/how-do-uber-drivers-get-paid-
and-how-to-resolve-payment-errors/>
Thanks for digging that out. It is just as I expected.
One thing I noticed from those is that Uber automatically repays drivers
for any tolls they have to pay when carrying fares. But not when empty. So
if a driver carried a fare across a toll bridge/tunnel, the toll is added
to the fare and repaid to the driver. But if the driver then has to return
home empty, they have to pay the fare out of their own pocket. So that is
like a self-employed cabbie, not an employee.
Taxi fare schedules with which i am familiar specify that any toll on
the outward journey is doubled, so as to cater for the return journey.
So that's a difference where Uber is concerned, not a similarity.
Following up on a question I asked earlier, I see that the biggest firm
in my locality has as T&C:

All fares are quoted in Pounds (£) Sterling GBP. The pick up
fare includes initial 30 minutes waiting time, car parking fees,
motorway toll fees and any congestion charges.

But then kind of contradicts itself (drop-off fees are really a parking
charge for the drop-off area, being metered by time) with:

Stansted Airport and London Luton Airport have introduced a drop
off fee to drivers on exiting the airport drop off area, this
fee is currently set at £3.50[1] for Stansted and £3.00 for
Luton. This is an addition(sic) charge to the listed pricing.

The pick-up area at Stansted is a bus-ride away from the terminal
building, which is a bit inconvenient if you've ordered a taxi. Luton
airport describes its premium facility as both pick-up and drop-off.
Birmingham airport (like Stansted) as only drop-off, but I've been
picked up there by taxis.

[1] According to the airport it's £4 for the first 10 minutes, then
£1/minute.
--
Roland Perry
JNugent
2019-06-02 13:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by JNugent
I don't know what form their subsequent internal accounting procedures
take, but if it were their practice to issue invoices to the driver, I
strongly suspect that we would have heard about that by now.
There's no need to speculate: Uber operates a weekly billing cycle,
Mon-Mon, and issues statements to drivers on Tuesdays. Their net money,
after User's fee, is then transferred to their accounts on Wednesday.
<https://www.ridester.com/uber-payment/amp/>
<https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/how-do-uber-drivers-get-paid-
and-how-to-resolve-payment-errors/>
Thanks for digging that out. It is just as I expected.
One thing I noticed from those is that Uber automatically repays drivers
for any tolls they have to pay when carrying fares. But not when empty. So
if a driver carried a fare across a toll bridge/tunnel, the toll is added
to the fare and repaid to the driver. But if the driver then has to return
home empty, they have to pay the fare out of their own pocket. So that is
like a self-employed cabbie, not an employee.
Taxi fare schedules with which i am familiar specify that any toll on
the outward journey is doubled, so as to cater for the return journey.
So that's a difference where Uber is concerned, not a similarity.
Following up on a question I asked earlier, I see that the biggest firm
I wasn't talking about the policies of a "firm".

I was describing the law, as provided by regulation and local by-law,
made, as the case may be, under the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act
1869 (as amended), the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and/or the Local
Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

As I am sure you know, the law does not prescribe or control the charges
made by the drivers or operators of private hire cars (including Uber).
It only controls the fares of taxis. The private hire industry may
charge what it likes (subject to martket conditions).
Post by Roland Perry
All fares are quoted in Pounds (£) Sterling GBP. The pick up
fare includes initial 30 minutes waiting time, car parking fees,
motorway toll fees and any congestion charges.
But then kind of contradicts itself (drop-off fees are really a parking
Stansted Airport and London Luton Airport have introduced a drop
off fee to drivers on exiting the airport drop off area, this
fee is currently set at £3.50[1] for Stansted and £3.00 for
Luton. This is an addition(sic) charge to the listed pricing.
All fine. They can do as they like. There is no question of their not
being allowed to do it. They are not taxis, after all.
Post by Roland Perry
The pick-up area at Stansted is a bus-ride away from the terminal
building, which is a bit inconvenient if you've ordered a taxi. Luton
airport describes its premium facility as both pick-up and drop-off.
Birmingham airport (like Stansted) as only drop-off, but I've been
picked up there by taxis.
[1] According to the airport it's £4 for the first 10 minutes, then
£1/minute.
JNugent
2019-05-31 23:22:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
 The turnover for someone like Uber or TheTrainline being the
commission  element, not including the money that passes straight
through to the  drivers and Train Companies respectively.
If Uber only received a commission or circuit fee from the driver,
that would be correct and I would certainly not argue with your
proposition.
But how can that correct be in the circumstance where they also turn
over the whole of the fare collected from the passenger
(account-holder) on the spot?
Do they, and send the driver an invoice for their commission later (end
of the month perhaps)?
I assume your "Do they..." was a request for confirmation of what I said.
Yes, Uber do collect the whole of the fare.
I don't know what form their subsequent internal accounting procedures
take, but if it were their practice to issue invoices to the driver, I
strongly suspect that we would have heard about that by now.
There's no need to speculate: Uber operates a weekly billing cycle,
Mon-Mon, and issues statements to drivers on Tuesdays. Their net money,
after User's fee, is then transferred to their accounts on Wednesday.
<https://www.ridester.com/uber-payment/amp/>
<https://www.ridesharingdriver.com/how-do-uber-drivers-get-paid-and-how-to-resolve-payment-errors/>
...and?
Post by Recliner
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
That would nudge them a bit closer to being perceived by the passenger
as a cab company, rather than a booking agent for the driver.
The passenger's view isn't important anyway, but even so, it's hard to
see how "knowing" that Uber issue invoices to drivers [if that were the
case, for which there is no evidence] would affect passengers' opinion
of Uber.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
I don't think credit card companies include the total value of
things  purchased with their cards in their turnover. But they do
collect the  money from buyers, deduct a commission, they pay the
balance to
vendors. And like no doubt Uber, they don't pay the whole amount
out  and  then send an invoice asking for the commission back
whenever the  trader  feels like it.
I don't now about you, but I pay money to my credit card issuers.
 That's what I wrote. They collect the money you pay to them, and
channel  it through to the merchants.
Post by JNugent
They don't pay money to me.
 I didn't suggest they did. They pay money to merchants. But that's
money  from you to the merchant, and isn't part of the card issuer's
turnover.
Indeed. They are financial trading entities operating as registered /
recognised banks licenced by the state. They lend money (part of their
capital assets) and only the fees and charges they receive are their
turnover.
They lend money to the buyer (at zero interest rate if they pay it off
on demand). They don't lend money to the merchant.
Post by JNugent
Does that apply to Uber?
And TheTrainline, does the train company get paid for the ticket
straight away, or does TTL have 30day (or whatever) credit with them
all. Whatever the answer, their turnover in their published accounts is
just the commission/fee element.
But they are not Uber. And Uber are going to have to argue that the
money they turn over is not part of their turnover.
Just to be clear about this: if an individual self-employed taxi-driver
(or private hire driver) turned over £85,000 and were honest enough to
report the fact, they would be forced by law to register for VAT and to
charge it on top of the fare.
But turning over £1808 a week (assuming five weeks' non-activity per
annum) would be a tall order. Not so for Uber.
Roland Perry
2019-05-31 07:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
 The turnover for someone like Uber or TheTrainline being the
commission  element, not including the money that passes straight
through to the  drivers and Train Companies respectively.
If Uber only received a commission or circuit fee from the driver,
that would be correct and I would certainly not argue with your
proposition.
But how can that correct be in the circumstance where they also turn
over the whole of the fare collected from the passenger
(account-holder) on the spot?
Do they, and send the driver an invoice for their commission later
(end of the month perhaps)?
I assume your "Do they..." was a request for confirmation of what I said.
I was asking for confirmation that they "turn over the whole fare
collected from the passenger, on the spot".

There's two aspects:

The whole fare, and
On the spot.
Post by JNugent
Yes, Uber do collect the whole of the fare.
No-one ever claimed otherwise. It's what they do after collecting it
which matters.
Post by JNugent
I don't know what form their subsequent internal accounting procedures
take, but if it were their practice to issue invoices to the driver, I
strongly suspect that we would have heard about that by now.
Therefore you are now agreeing with my proposition that they pay the
driver only part of what they collected from the passenger. Having
deducted their commission.

Whether they pay it "on the spot", or perhaps 'at the end of the week'
or whatever, is peripheral to that particular aspect.
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
That would nudge them a bit closer to being perceived by the
passenger as a cab company, rather than a booking agent for the driver.
The passenger's view isn't important anyway, but even so, it's hard to
see how "knowing" that Uber issue invoices to drivers [if that were the
case, for which there is no evidence] would affect passengers' opinion
of Uber.
There are two models possible:

Passenger pays for the ride and the whole fare is collected by Uber
and sent to the driver (with Uber being in effect just a form of
merchant services dealing with the card payment). Later, Uber sends a
bill to the driver for his usage of their booking/billing platform.

Or,

Passenger pays Uber for the ride, and they send him (maybe
immediately, maybe later) a piecework payment for having done the
driving aspect.

The perceptual difference being whether the passenger has just
patronised a self-employed driver, or a multi-billion cab company.
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
TheTrainline, does the train company get paid for the ticket straight
away, or does TTL have 30day (or whatever) credit with them all.
Whatever the answer, their turnover in their published accounts is
just the commission/fee element.
But they are not Uber. And Uber are going to have to argue that the
money they turn over is not part of their turnover.
The two business models are very similar.
Post by JNugent
Just to be clear about this: if an individual self-employed taxi-driver
(or private hire driver) turned over £85,000 and were honest enough to
report the fact, they would be forced by law to register for VAT and to
charge it on top of the fare.
But turning over £1808 a week (assuming five weeks' non-activity per
annum) would be a tall order. Not so for Uber.
Yes, I think we all understand why the £85k is important.
--
Roland Perry
JNugent
2019-06-02 12:56:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
 The turnover for someone like Uber or TheTrainline being the
commission  element, not including the money that passes straight
through to the  drivers and Train Companies respectively.
If Uber only received a commission or circuit fee from the driver,
that would be correct and I would certainly not argue with your
proposition.
But how can that correct be in the circumstance where they also turn
over the whole of the fare collected from the passenger
(account-holder) on the spot?
 Do they, and send the driver an invoice for their commission later
(end  of the month perhaps)?
I assume your "Do they..." was a request for confirmation of what I said.
I was asking for confirmation that they "turn over the whole fare
collected from the passenger, on the spot".
The whole fare, and
On the spot.
Post by JNugent
Yes, Uber do collect the whole of the fare.
No-one ever claimed otherwise. It's what they do after collecting it
which matters.
Post by JNugent
I don't know what form their subsequent internal accounting procedures
take, but if it were their practice to issue invoices to the driver, I
strongly suspect that we would have heard about that by now.
Therefore you are now agreeing with my proposition that they pay the
driver only part of what they collected from the passenger. Having
deducted their commission.
Not in the slightest.

They do pay an amount to the driver. Whether that is a fixed proportion
or a flat fee based on time or mileage is more than I know. I cannot
agree that Uber pay the whole of the fare less their (Uber's) commission
to the driver for the rather obvious reason that I do not know it to be
true.
Post by Roland Perry
Whether they pay it "on the spot", or perhaps 'at the end of the week'
or whatever, is peripheral to that particular aspect.
Is it? If you say so. I'm not convinced.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
That would nudge them a bit closer to being perceived by the
passenger  as a cab company, rather than a booking agent for the driver.
The passenger's view isn't important anyway, but even so, it's hard to
see how "knowing" that Uber issue invoices to drivers [if that were
the case, for which there is no evidence] would affect passengers'
opinion of Uber.
  Passenger pays for the ride and the whole fare is collected by Uber
  and sent to the driver (with Uber being in effect just a form of
  merchant services dealing with the card payment). Later, Uber sends a
  bill to the driver for his usage of their booking/billing platform.
Or,
  Passenger pays Uber for the ride, and they send him (maybe
  immediately, maybe later) a piecework payment for having done the
  driving aspect.
True enough. In either csae, Uber turns over the whole of the fare.
Post by Roland Perry
The perceptual difference being whether the passenger has just
patronised a self-employed driver, or a multi-billion cab company.
The only perception that matters is that of HMRC (and eventually,
perhaps, the courts).
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
TheTrainline, does the train company get paid for the ticket
straight away, or does TTL have 30day (or whatever) credit with them
all. Whatever the answer, their turnover in their published accounts
is just the commission/fee element.
But they are not Uber. And Uber are going to have to argue that the
money they turn over is not part of their turnover.
The two business models are very similar.
Not at all. Does Trainline get 100% of the turnover of the TOCs running
through its accounts?

Uber certainly gets 100% of its own turnover passing through its books.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Just to be clear about this: if an individual self-employed
taxi-driver (or private hire driver) turned over £85,000 and were
honest enough to report the fact, they would be forced by law to
register for VAT and to charge it on top of the fare.
But turning over £1808 a week (assuming five weeks' non-activity per
annum) would be a tall order. Not so for Uber.
Yes, I think we all understand why the £85k is important.
Uber have to collect and pay VAT (this is not automatically so for other
private hire drivers, proprietors or operators). The question is only
the quantum of their turnover.
Roland Perry
2019-06-03 10:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
I don't know what form their subsequent internal accounting
procedures take, but if it were their practice to issue invoices to
the driver, I strongly suspect that we would have heard about that by now.
Therefore you are now agreeing with my proposition that they pay the
driver only part of what they collected from the passenger. Having
deducted their commission.
Not in the slightest.
They do pay an amount to the driver. Whether that is a fixed proportion
or a flat fee based on time or mileage is more than I know. I cannot
agree that Uber pay the whole of the fare less their (Uber's)
commission to the driver for the rather obvious reason that I do not
know it to be true.
Even though you've been given plausible citations which say it is true?
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Whether they pay it "on the spot", or perhaps 'at the end of the
week' or whatever, is peripheral to that particular aspect.
Is it? If you say so. I'm not convinced.
Even though you've been given plausible citations which say it is true?
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
  Passenger pays for the ride and the whole fare is collected by Uber
  and sent to the driver (with Uber being in effect just a form of
  merchant services dealing with the card payment). Later, Uber sends a
  bill to the driver for his usage of their booking/billing platform.
Or,
  Passenger pays Uber for the ride, and they send him (maybe
  immediately, maybe later) a piecework payment for having done the
  driving aspect.
True enough. In either csae, Uber turns over the whole of the fare.
Now you are just being perverse. Paying the driver piece-work (if that
were the model) is absolutely not handing over the whole fare.
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
TheTrainline, does the train company get paid for the ticket
straight away, or does TTL have 30day (or whatever) credit with them
all. Whatever the answer, their turnover in their published accounts
is just the commission/fee element.
But they are not Uber. And Uber are going to have to argue that the
money they turn over is not part of their turnover.
The two business models are very similar.
Not at all. Does Trainline get 100% of the turnover of the TOCs running
through its accounts?
Through its bank accounts - yes. Through its trading accounts - no.
Post by JNugent
Uber certainly gets 100% of its own turnover passing through its books.
But the question is: what of the turnover of its drivers passing though
its "books", whatever the latter is supposed to mean.
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Just to be clear about this: if an individual self-employed
taxi-driver (or private hire driver) turned over £85,000 and were
honest enough to report the fact, they would be forced by law to
register for VAT and to charge it on top of the fare.
But turning over £1808 a week (assuming five weeks' non-activity per
annum) would be a tall order. Not so for Uber.
Yes, I think we all understand why the £85k is important.
Uber have to collect and pay VAT (this is not automatically so for
other private hire drivers, proprietors or operators). The question is
only the quantum of their turnover.
Indeed. Is it just the commission, or also the drivers' pay.
--
Roland Perry
JNugent
2019-06-03 14:07:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
I don't know what form their subsequent internal accounting
procedures  take, but if it were their practice to issue invoices to
the driver, I  strongly suspect that we would have heard about that
by now.
 Therefore you are now agreeing with my proposition that they pay the
driver only part of what they collected from the passenger. Having
deducted their commission.
Not in the slightest.
They do pay an amount to the driver. Whether that is a fixed
proportion or a flat fee based on time or mileage is more than I know.
I cannot agree that Uber pay the whole of the fare less their (Uber's)
commission to the driver for the rather obvious reason that I do not
know it to be true.
Even though you've been given plausible citations which say it is true?
Lots of incompatible things might be plausible.

"Plausible" does not mean the same as "definitive".
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Whether they pay it "on the spot", or perhaps 'at the end of the
week'  or whatever, is peripheral to that particular aspect.
Is it? If you say so. I'm not convinced.
Even though you've been given plausible citations which say it is true?
See above.

The word "plausible" used to be a weasel word attached to con-men and spivs.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
    Passenger pays for the ride and the whole fare is collected by Uber
   and sent to the driver (with Uber being in effect just a form of
   merchant services dealing with the card payment). Later, Uber sends a
   bill to the driver for his usage of their booking/billing platform.
 Or,
    Passenger pays Uber for the ride, and they send him (maybe
   immediately, maybe later) a piecework payment for having done the
   driving aspect.
True enough. In either csae, Uber turns over the whole of the fare.
Now you are just being perverse. Paying the driver piece-work (if that
were the model) is absolutely not handing over the whole fare.
I realised too late that "turns over" might be misinterpreted (whether
inadvertently or mischievously) as "handed over".

I mean that all of the money taken from the CC account of the hirer is
turned over (meaning simply "taken" or "collected") by Uber.

I hope that's clearer.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Roland Perry
TheTrainline, does the train company get paid for the ticket
straight away, or does TTL have 30day (or whatever) credit with
them all. Whatever the answer, their turnover in their published
accounts is just the commission/fee element.
But they are not Uber. And Uber are going to have to argue that the
money they turn over is not part of their turnover.
 The two business models are very similar.
Not at all. Does Trainline get 100% of the turnover of the TOCs
running through its accounts?
Through its bank accounts - yes. Through its trading accounts - no.
Rubbish.

That could not be true unless trainline.com were the only way of buying
a railway ticket. And it isn't.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Uber certainly gets 100% of its own turnover passing through its books.
But the question is: what of the turnover of its drivers passing though
its "books", whatever the latter is supposed to mean.
That's a matter to be decided by HMRC and/or the courts.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Just to be clear about this: if an individual self-employed
taxi-driver (or private hire driver) turned over £85,000 and were
honest enough to report the fact, they would be forced by law to
register for VAT and to charge it on top of the fare.
But turning over £1808 a week (assuming five weeks' non-activity per
annum) would be a tall order. Not so for Uber.
 Yes, I think we all understand why the £85k is important.
Uber have to collect and pay VAT (this is not automatically so for
other private hire drivers, proprietors or operators). The question is
only the quantum of their turnover.
Indeed. Is it just the commission, or also the drivers' pay.
Indeed. That is the question which has to be decided by an official body
(probably the Court of Appeal, in the end).
Loading...