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

The FTT identified the issues before it as being:

On the first issue, the FTT found that the ride-hailing services provided by Bolt were services of a kind commonly provided by tour operators or travel agents and so capable of falling within the special scheme. It did so on the grounds that Bolt provided passenger transport services and at “a high level” those supplies corresponded with the kind of supplies made by tour operators and travel agents (FTT [105]). If it was wrong on that point, and the comparison had to be made at a more particular level, the FTT would have concluded that Bolt provided taxi rides and there was “no reason why a taxi ride… cannot be regarded as a service of a kind commonly provided by tour operators or travel agents” (FTT [108]).

On the second issue, the FTT concluded that Bolt supplied the services of the drivers to the passengers without material alteration or further processing and so the ride-hailing services were not in-house services that had to be excluded from the TOMS (FTT [111]).

The FTT therefore concluded (at FTT [112]) that the supply of mobile ride-hailing services, without any additional elements, to a traveller was a provision of travel facilities within the TOMS. This conclusion was based on the FTT’s conclusion from its review of the case law that the provision of transport is a travel service for the purpose of the TOMS and that it is not necessary for a trader to provide any additional services for that service to fall within the scheme. The FTT noted that, even if it was wrong on that issue, the additional services provided by Bolt – the various options for the journey within the Bolt mobile app, the help and assistance that was available through the app or Bolt’s website, or by email and telephone, the information provided in articles on Bolt’s website and in its blog – were sufficient to bring the supply of mobile ride-hailing services within the TOMS (FTT [113]).

On that basis, the FTT allowed Bolt’s appeal.