Reply to: Deliveroo claims victory in self-employment case

[SueEllen]

They are employees.

Are you sure?

Some will be while some won't be thanks to Deliveroo and Ubereats

[northernladyuk]

True but so could your local pizza delivery guys.

They are employees.

[SueEllen]

It is technically possible but it is not the way the business model is constructed and any driver who did this would face disciplinary action.

Which makes them a worker.

[meanttobeworking]

Not sure if this is a good or bad thing for Deliveroo...but has this case just set a precedent that simply having the right to send a substitution is a key pointer for not being employed? Ergo, simply having a contractual right to substitution (whether you've ever used it or not) could be equally as important in an IR35 case?

I realise this was sort of already the case, but does this make it harder for HMRC to make the whole "sham clause" attack?

I’m not sure it changes things in the way you suggest, as even HMRC’s heavily biased tool gives up and calls you Outside if you can send a substitute in real life, not just on paper. But one thing it does do for sure is strengthen your defence if you can prove your client would actually agree to one, in principle.

[MyUserName]

Agreed, and likely both would lose their taxi licences. But that does not stop #2 from driving #1's car for UBER as a sub. Hence, if I were UBER, I'd be making the case that my people were just like Deliveroo's. It really, really, is a total mess. Different vested interests pulling the courts in different directions. The lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank. Now, if only there were a statutory definition of the different types of worker, all our problems would be solved

It is technically possible but it is not the way the business model is constructed and any driver who did this would face disciplinary action.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Not sure if this is a good or bad thing for Deliveroo...but has this case just set a precedent that simply having the right to send a substitution is a key pointer for not being employed? Ergo, simply having a contractual right to substitution (whether you've ever used it or not) could be equally as important in an IR35 case?

I realise this was sort of already the case, but does this make it harder for HMRC to make the whole "sham clause" attack?

[SueEllen]

Agreed, and likely both would lose their taxi licences. But that does not stop #2 from driving #1's car for UBER as a sub. Hence, if I were UBER, I'd be making the case that my people were just like Deliveroo's. It really, really, is a total mess. Different vested interests pulling the courts in different directions. The lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank. Now, if only there were a statutory definition of the different types of worker, all our problems would be solved

One of the USPs of Uber is the passenger knows who the driver and license plate of the car before it arrives.

If Uber do a Deliveroo they lose the USP.

[Fred Bloggs]

Uber doesn't.

But if a driver #2 has a conviction for GBH or sexual assault and then does it to a passenger then Uber and driver #1 would also be in trouble.

Agreed, and likely both would lose their taxi licences. But that does not stop #2 from driving #1's car for UBER as a sub. Hence, if I were UBER, I'd be making the case that my people were just like Deliveroo's. It really, really, is a total mess. Different vested interests pulling the courts in different directions. The lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank. Now, if only there were a statutory definition of the different types of worker, all our problems would be solved

[SueEllen]

You might be a bit miffed if it turns out that you Deliveroo 'associate' turns out to have multiple convictions for poisoning.

True but so could your local pizza delivery guys.

[SueEllen]

If UBER driver #2 sits in UBER driver #1's seat and drives #1's car, how does UBER know? UBER driver #1 has then successfully substituted. UBER can then claim their drivers have the same right to substitute as the Deliveroo riders and they are not employees since employees cannot substitute as per the Deliveroo case. The law is an utter mess. It just shouldn't be like this.

Uber doesn't.

But if a driver #2 has a conviction for GBH or sexual assault and then does it to a passenger then Uber and driver #1 would also be in trouble.

[northernladyuk]

Nope because they need to have recorded who is going to pick you up.

One thing many customers particularly female customers say when asked what they like about Uber is as soon as they book a cab they know from the outset which driver and the license plate of the car that will be picking them up. Many mini-cab firms won't tell you this and black cabs don't either.

On the other hand when you order food by Deliveroo like when you order a takeaway pizza you don't give a feck about who delivers it.

You might be a bit miffed if it turns out that you Deliveroo 'associate' turns out to have multiple convictions for poisoning.

[Fred Bloggs]

With Uber if uber1 accepts the job, their name and number plate appear on the app so the customer sees who they are expecting, so if uber2 turns up there will be an issue

I suppose in theory Deliveroo1 can accept a job then give it to Deliveroo2 to actually deliver, similar "theory" to Contractor1 accepting a security clearance-dependent contract and substitute in Contractor2 with no questions asked

If UBER driver #2 sits in UBER driver #1's seat and drives #1's car, how does UBER know? UBER driver #1 has then successfully substituted. UBER can then claim their drivers have the same right to substitute as the Deliveroo riders and they are not employees since employees cannot substitute as per the Deliveroo case. The law is an utter mess. It just shouldn't be like this.

[pr1]

Take your point, but can't an UBER driver substitute his mate who is also an UBER or private hire driver instead? I would substitute another professional engineer, I guess you'd sub with whatever your discipline is too. On that basis, I think an UBER driver can indeed, sub without UBER even knowing.

With Uber if uber1 accepts the job, their name and number plate appear on the app so the customer sees who they are expecting, so if uber2 turns up there will be an issue

I suppose in theory Deliveroo1 can accept a job then give it to Deliveroo2 to actually deliver, similar "theory" to Contractor1 accepting a security clearance-dependent contract and substitute in Contractor2 with no questions asked

[SueEllen]

Btw I just read City Sprint, who lost in an employment tribunal, have changed the contracts for all their workers.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...ge-holiday-pay

[SueEllen]

Take your point, but can't an UBER driver substitute his mate who is also an UBER or private hire driver instead? I would substitute another professional engineer, I guess you'd sub with whatever your discipline is too. On that basis, I think an UBER driver can indeed, sub without UBER even knowing.

Nope because they need to have recorded who is going to pick you up.

One thing many customers particularly female customers say when asked what they like about Uber is as soon as they book a cab they know from the outset which driver and the license plate of the car that will be picking them up. Many mini-cab firms won't tell you this and black cabs don't either.

On the other hand when you order food by Deliveroo like when you order a takeaway pizza you don't give a feck about who delivers it.