Delivery Firms to be Liable for Vehicle Safety

[presta]

As of 1.10.26, delivery firms may be made liable for the vehicles their contractors use (both vans and bikes), and it'll also apply to hiring illegal immigrant labour. The fine is £45k per employee for a first offence, and £60k for subsequent offences.

https://www.cyclingelectric.com/in-...oon-be-liable-for-unsafe-gig-economy-vehicles

Perhaps that'll make some impact on illegal electric bike use, as the cost could quickly rack up if it's enforced enough.

 

[classic33]

Delivery riders for the food delivery companies are self employed, not employees. With that in mind, I doubt the companies will even bother about the possibility of a fine.

 

[Drago]

About. Bleeding. Time.

I wonder if that will extend to paper boys on their bicycles?

 

[midlife]

Apparently covers “ other working arrangements” from what I read so I guess no escape route for the delivery company ?

 

[Alex321]

Delivery riders for the food delivery companies are self employed, not employees. With that in mind, I doubt the companies will even bother about the possibility of a fine.

The companies always have been liable for employees. This change will make them liable for sub-contractors too.

 

[classic33]

The companies always have been liable for employees. This change will make them liable for sub-contractors too.

Are the self-employed contractors for the companies though?

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/i...ders-local-problem.297469/page-4#post-7212338

 

[Alex321]

Are the self-employed contractors for the companies though?

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/i...ders-local-problem.297469/page-4#post-7212338

I think they are, yes.

The customer contracts with the outlet, they pay the delivery people to deliver it.

 

[Drago]

And don't forget PUWER.

Its been held in court that a bicycle is machinery with the ability to cause serious injuries or death, and the PUWER regs apply to their use in the workplace. Thus employers must ensure their employees are competent in their use and, where necessary, trained to be able to operate a bicycle safely. The Royal Mail caught a 6 figure cold on that one.

 

[Emanresu]

Could be under vicarious liability. Generally contractors carry their own Public Liability Insurance but if it can be proven that the drivers were quasi-employees then liability would fall under the delivery company's PLI.

The trick will be in determining the proportion of the subcontractor's time/income related to an individual delivery company. And the cherry on the top will be, if proven, there is all that tax and NI the HMRC can claim too.

 

[Alex321]

Could be under vicarious liability. Generally contractors carry their own Public Liability Insurance but if it can be proven that the drivers were quasi-employees then liability would fall under the delivery company's PLI.

The trick will be in determining the proportion of the subcontractor's time/income related to an individual delivery company. And the cherry on the top will be, if proven, there is all that tax and NI the HMRC can claim too.

This is all about a change in the law which will make the companies using them liable.

It isn't about employment, or existing vicarious liability laws.

It is mainly intended to combat sub contracting illegal immigrants, but will also have wider reaching impact.

 

[bikingdad90]

As I understand It’s the immigration act, so it is services in connection with a relevant immigration related crime aka a relevant article quoted earlier in the legislation, so it’s a narrow definition that would only cover those that are delivering/supply services as self employed individuals when they do not have a legal right to work due to their current status?

 

[Alex321]

As I understand It’s the immigration act, so it is services in connection with a relevant immigration related crime aka a relevant article quoted earlier in the legislation, so it’s a narrow definition that would only cover those that are delivering/supply services as self employed individuals when they do not have a legal right to work due to their current status?

No, although it is in that act, the part relating to the vehicles used applies to all AIUI.

 

[Alex321]

No, although it is in that act, the part relating to the vehicles used applies to all AIUI.

I can't actually find anything in the Act or the modifications which relate to ensuring the safety of vehicles used by sub-contractors.

The article linked to above says (my bold):
While this change may be intended primarily to combat immigration offences, it will also likely close loopholes around a business’s responsibility for who it directly or indirectly employs, and who gets subcontracted down the chain. In turn, this aligns the law on things like an employer’s responsibility to ensure vehicles used by staff are safe and road legal.

I don't think it aligns that law at all, I think cyclingelectric.com have just got it wrong. As did I in that previous post of mine, where I was going by teh article, rather than looking at the actual legislation.

 

[Emanresu]

Here you go, Alex. I'm guessing the operative part is 'chain of contracts' .

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2025/31/section/48

Subsection (4) applies where A is contracted to provide, or arrange for the provision of, the work or services regardless of whether that contract is the first or any other contract in a chain of contracts to provide, or arrange for the provision of, the work or services (or part of the work or services).

 

[SteveH80]

I would want to check the proposed legislation to ensure that cyclingelectric haven't got it wrong, but on the face of it this is good legislation.
Anything that's stops employers dodging legislation by crying 'contractor not employee' is good to me.
Of course it means the cost of food deliveries will go up. Well tough, go do your own shopping, we abolished all that nonsense in 1833 and we don't need it creeping back in in another guise.
Any side benefits to manage illegal electric motorcycles is a good thing.