UT/2024/000008 - [2025] UKUT 00100 (TCC)

The first issue is whether what Bolt is doing is a service of the kind commonly provided by tour operators or travel agents. The answer depends on how Bolt's services are viewed for the purposes of comparing them with the services provided by tour operators and travel agents. At a high level, Bolt supplies passenger transport and it is clear from the case law referred to above that transport is a travel service. That corresponds, at the high level, with the kind of supplies made by tour operators or travel agents when they supply transport by planes, trains and coaches. More particularly, Bolt supplies on-demand ride hailing services for passenger transport from point A to point B, mostly within urban areas. While some of the evidence suggested that tour operators and travel agents supplied point to point transport, e.g. airport pick-ups and transfers, I was not satisfied that they commonly provided on-demand rides from point A to point B which were the same as or similar to those provided by Bolt. In any event, for the reasons set out below, I consider that the correct approach is to take a high level or general view when considering whether services are of a kind commonly provided by tour operators or travel agents.

The approach taken by the CJEU in the cases suggests that it is not necessary for the tribunal to descend into the detail of the services. In Madgett and Baldwin at [23], the CJEU referred to "services generally associated with that kind of activity" and in ISt, the CJEU said at [24] (emphasis supplied):

Determining whether a person provides services of a kind commonly provided by tour operators or travel agents by making a detailed examination carries the risk of inconsistent application of VAT to supplies to travellers and distortion of competition between traders in the same sector. That further supports the view that the tribunal should take a general or non-specific view of the activities that are to be compared. Adopting that approach, I conclude that passenger transport services are the kind of services commonly provided by tour operators or travel agents in that such services are generally associated with the type of activity carried on by tour operators and travel agents.

If I am wrong and it is necessary to have regard to the mode of transport then I note that the Advocate General in Madgett and Baldwin took the view that where a hotel arranges for a taxi to take one of its guests to a station or airport, the ride with the hotel's other services would not fall within the scope of the EU special scheme (see [23] above). The Advocate General did not take that view because arranging a taxi ride to a station or airport was not the kind of service commonly provided by tour operators or travel agents but because, in his view, the taxi service was ancillary to the provision of hotel accommodation. The obvious inference is that if the transport by taxi had not been ancillary then it would have fallen within the scope of the special scheme. There seems, therefore, to be no reason why a taxi ride (and thus a PHV journey) cannot be regarded as a service of a kind commonly provided by tour operators or travel agents.

I do not consider that the fact that Bolt provides rides to and from places, e.g. a supermarket, restaurant or cinema, which travel agents do not typically serve makes any difference in principle. HMRC did not suggest that the purpose of a journey, eg whether it was for business or pleasure, or its duration could affect whether or not it fell within the TOMS. Nor do I think that it makes any difference if a customer can specify the start and end point of the journey. If the purpose of the journey does not matter then why should a feature such as the ability of the customer to specify the place of departure and destination without restriction affect whether it falls within the scope of the TOMS? Travel agents and airlines routinely arrange transport of holidaymakers by PHV between their home and an airport at the start and end of a holiday. Such airport transfers are usually provided as part of a package but that does not make them any less from point A to point B.

In the course of argument, Ms Mitrophanous submitted that tour operators and travel agents did not commonly provide passenger transport services on demand but typically only provided pre-booked passenger transport as part of a package. That suggested that, other arguments apart, Bolt's scheduled rides service might be distinguished from their on-demand service with only the former being a service of a kind commonly provided by tour operators or travel agents. In my view, the distinction between scheduled and on-demand rides, which is only a matter of timing, cannot be determinative of whether mobile ride-hailing services are services of a kind commonly provided by tour operators or travel agents and thus within the TOMS. Any distinction based on how far in advance a ride was booked would necessarily be arbitrary, e.g. a ride booked two hours in advance is within the TOMS whereas one booked one hour 59 minutes before the pick-up is not. Such a threshold cannot be determinative. It seems to me that ride-hailing services and scheduled rides cannot be differentiated and are both services of a kind commonly provided by tour operators or travel agents for the same reasons. It follows that I do not need to consider where the dividing line lies between ride-hailing services and scheduled services for the purposes of the TOMS.

If I am wrong and the provision of travel facilities requires there to be other elements in addition to the transport then it is not fatal to Bolt's appeal in my view. The CJEU in Star Coaches at [23] held that the addition of other services such as information and advice relating to holidays and the reservation of the journey would be enough to bring transport, which is a travel service, within the EU special scheme. In this case, Bolt provides such other services, namely: the ability to arrange a journey with various options by using the Bolt mobile app; help and assistance available 24/7 via the app or Bolt's website as well as by email and telephone; and information and advice on certain places served by Bolt which can be found in articles on Bolt's website and in its blog. I consider that, if required, such additional services are sufficient to bring the supply of mobile ride-hailing services within the TOMS.