BBC Breakfast item today on illegally modded ebikes

[Psamathe]

Just station a couple of officers outside a "Just Eat" (or whatever) for an evening and all the illegal bikes would disappear. Repeat for a few nights and "Just Eat" would have piles of undelivered hot, now cold food not being delivered and no illegal riders will come near the place.

Then agreement with "Just Eat" that they will check and ban illegal bikes and if they are found not to do so then officers will return for a month and their business will collapse.

Ian

 

[markemark]

Just station a couple of officers outside a "Just Eat" (or whatever) for an evening and all the illegal bikes would disappear. Repeat for a few nights and "Just Eat" would have piles of undelivered hot, now cold food not being delivered and no illegal riders will come near the place.

Then agreement with "Just Eat" that they will check and ban illegal bikes and if they are found not to do so then officers will return for a month and their business will collapse.

Ian

“Just Eat Takeaway has 374,000 partnered restaurants across all of their platforms”
How many officers and how many places would this be? 300 officers outside 100 places would be 0.026 of their business. Nobody would even notice.

 

[Baldy]

If you watch the video in the original post that is more or less what they were doing. Once the word got out that the police/border force were about all the delivery riders disappeared. The ones that tried to do a runner were pulled off their bikes.

 

[Psamathe]

Just station a couple of officers outside a "Just Eat" (or whatever) for an evening and all the illegal bikes would disappear. Repeat for a few nights and "Just Eat" would have piles of undelivered hot, now cold food not being delivered and no illegal riders will come near the place.

Then agreement with "Just Eat" that they will check and ban illegal bikes and if they are found not to do so then officers will return for a month and their business will collapse.

Ian

“Just Eat Takeaway has 374,000 partnered restaurants across all of their platforms”
How many officers and how many places would this be? 300 officers outside 100 places would be 0.026 of their business. Nobody would even notice.

It's not about every restaurant it's about getting the company and its franchises to put in place checks and if they are caught not doing so risk action.

Also, is it becomes known across the industry that suddenly without warning officers can arrive and then they have no delivery sales for a few days they will pre-emptively put in place checks so if Police arrive their delivery cycles won't disappear because they know they are legal.

Ian

 

[classic33]

“Just Eat Takeaway has 374,000 partnered restaurants across all of their platforms”
How many officers and how many places would this be? 300 officers outside 100 places would be 0.026 of their business. Nobody would even notice.

Briggate in Leeds, over three dozen delivery riders gather there nearly every day.
The Broadway in Bradford, upwards of a dozen.
Point them out to the police and you're met with "they have pedals, they're bicycles not e-bikes".

As for the 50p delivery fee, there's some must be doing an awful lot of deliveries at that price. How many bikes can you afford to replace if seized before it becomes too much.
You're unlikely to get insurance to cover an illegal vehicle, and I'd say trying to claim for an illegal vehicle being seized would be laughed at whilst they said "No" chance" to you.

 

[Drago]

Just station a couple of officers outside a "Just Eat" (or whatever) for an evening and all the illegal bikes would disappear. Repeat for a few nights and "Just Eat" would have piles of undelivered hot, now cold food not being delivered and no illegal riders will come near the place.

Then agreement with "Just Eat" that they will check and ban illegal bikes and if they are found not to do so then officers will return for a month and their business will collapse.

Ian

Alas, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act prevents the dibble doing stuff like that. They cant even camp outside pubs looking for drink drivers any more because it counts as "directed surveillance."

 

[wiggydiggy]

As a follow up I've read this today:

Ministers refuse to share asylum hotel locations with delivery firms

"The Home Office is refusing to share information requested by food delivery companies who want to prevent small boat migrants working illegally in the gig economy.

Deliveroo asked Dame Angela Eagle, the minister for border security and asylum, and Home Office officials to provide the locations where asylum seekers are being housed in hotels.

It said that it needed this data to enable them to identify and block their courier’s accounts being used from these locations."

I think that if you are already working illegally, you are more likely to use an illegal means of transport to help with that. Its hard to criticise the delivery companies if they are being denied the means to identify the illegal workers.

 

[classic33]

As a follow up I've read this today:

Ministers refuse to share asylum hotel locations with delivery firms

"The Home Office is refusing to share information requested by food delivery companies who want to prevent small boat migrants working illegally in the gig economy.

Deliveroo asked Dame Angela Eagle, the minister for border security and asylum, and Home Office officials to provide the locations where asylum seekers are being housed in hotels.

It said that it needed this data to enable them to identify and block their courier’s accounts being used from these locations."

I think that if you are already working illegally, you are more likely to use an illegal means of transport to help with that. Its hard to criticise the delivery companies if they are being denied the means to identify the illegal workers.

Why do they need the hotel locations?
Aren't you asked for an address in any job application made.

The food delivery companies own tracking apps would show them what they're asking for. Further up thread it was suggested that the police check and remove the bikes from the streets. Why don't the food delivery companies put feet on the streets. Check that the people delivering under their name aren't breaking the law with regards their means of transport.

 

[Psamathe]

As a follow up I've read this today:

Ministers refuse to share asylum hotel locations with delivery firms

"The Home Office is refusing to share information requested by food delivery companies who want to prevent small boat migrants working illegally in the gig economy.

If a company is going to employ somebody ask for their NI number. Don't need their address. Request would look like "ulterior motives" and quite correct the details were not provided.

Ian

 

[wiggydiggy]

Why do they need the hotel locations?
Aren't you asked for an address in any job application made.

The food delivery companies own tracking apps would show them what they're asking for. Further up thread it was suggested that the police check and remove the bikes from the streets. Why don't the food delivery companies put feet on the streets. Check that the people delivering under their name aren't breaking the law with regards their means of transport.

I agree they don't need the data itself, but the government could at least say that 'yes that person is not entitled to work work in the UK, their transport can be seized'. Seizing due to lack of legal right to work might seem like overkill but if they are using it for work, when they are not entitled to work, I see that as being fair.

If a company is going to employ somebody ask for their NI number. Don't need their address. Request would look like "ulterior motives" and quite correct the details were not provided.

Ian

Unfortunately I don't think these delivery companies need to collect NI numbers as they don't employ the workers direct, there's no PAYE scheme to administer for them.

 

[classic33]

I agree they don't need the data itself, but the government could at least say that 'yes that person is not entitled to work work in the UK, their transport can be seized'. Seizing due to lack of legal right to work might seem like overkill but if they are using it for work, when they are not entitled to work, I see that as being fair.

Unfortunately I don't think these delivery companies need to collect NI numbers as they don't employ the workers direct, there's no PAYE scheme to administer for them.

Their own tracking apps, download required in order to take orders, let them see where the riders are. And even if they don't show actual speed, distance and time taken can be used.
As for seizing the bike, it'd be on the grounds of the vehicle being illegal to be in use, not because of the person using it.

There's riders who are now using petrol engined mopeds in the same manner they ride their ebikes. They* on those because the bikes they used have been seized by the police. Then the bike is replaced, and it's back to an illegal ebike.

*They should read they're

 

[Psamathe]

Unfortunately I don't think these delivery companies need to collect NI numbers as they don't employ the workers direct, there's no PAYE scheme to administer for them.

No PAYE but I thought since 2024 companies have to reports payments to HMRC and that requires NI number (as well as other details).

Ian

 

[wiggydiggy]

Their own tracking apps, download required in order to take orders, let them see where the riders are. And even if they don't show actual speed, distance and time taken can be used.
As for seizing the bike, it'd be on the grounds of the vehicle being illegal to be in use, not because of the person using it.

There's riders who are now using petrol engined mopeds in the same manner they ride their ebikes. They on those because the bikes they used have been seized by the police. Then the bike is replaced, and it's back to an illegal ebike.

That's a good point, where the bike goes after it's been finished with might not be where the rider lives, but I'd say it's likely.

No PAYE but I thought since 2024 companies have to reports payments to HMRC and that requires NI number (as well as other details).

Ian

I don't know, but that sounds likely.

 

[Electric_Andy]

I have no idea what laws cover this, but if the likes of JustEat and Deliveroo are not requird to vet their riders, who are effectively not employed by them anyway, then why would they? And if they are not required to by law, then it's not really their fault. Don't hate the player, hate the game, so to speak. So laws need to be passed that every sub-contractor or self-employed contractor needs to be checked for NI numbercard at the very least. This would make a lot of sense re: checking your contractors have the right to work in the UK.

They would also have to bring in something around checking all vehicles used by contractors are road legal. I doubt any company who hires a builder is currently checking that the builder's vans have got valid MOT and Tax. I'm not saying this is a bad idea, but generally you can't apply specific laws to delivery riders and their affiliated "employers" without applying it across the board.

I agree that working status and legality of kit/vehicles used is a very good thing, but not sure it sits entirely at JustEats door. Would be good if it did though

 

[Psamathe]

I have no idea what laws cover this, but if the likes of JustEat and Deliveroo are not requird to vet their riders, who are effectively not employed by them anyway, then why would they? And if they are not required to by law, then it's not really their fault. Don't hate the player, hate the game, so to speak. So laws need to be passed that every sub-contractor or self-employed contractor needs to be checked for NI numbercard at the very least. This would make a lot of sense re: checking your contractors have the right to work in the UK.

(I'm no legal expert so just personal views).
I don't disagree but when a company engages sub contractors it maintains some responsibility for their actions. We periodically get scandals where some UK High St retailer has sub-contracted to some distant overseas company where employment terms and controls are laxer yet big scandal and changes ensue.

I wonder if Planning Departments could also start to contribute to a solution eg by recognising that having high speed illegal vehicles without insurance charging around pedestrian zones is a public nuisance and thus to impose planning restrictions on the operation when applications for eg "Change of Use" are considered/granted.

Another aspect is Health and Safety". Having staff use illegal vehicles without insurance and without necessary licenses would probably contravene Health & Safety. A quick Google search and UK Health & Safety Executive say "For health and safety purposes, gig economy workers should be treated no differently to other workers" (https://www.hse.gov.uk/vulnerable-workers/gig-agency-temporary-workers/employer/index.htm) — and with my lack of experience suggests the outlet would have some degree of liability.

Ian