Legal Analysis: CarTrawler’s Status – Transport Operator or Intermediary in UK and EU?

CarTrawler is a B2B platform that enables airlines and travel brands to offer car rentals, airport transfers, taxis, and chauffeur services to their customers. Through CarTrawler’s technology, a traveler can pre-book ground transportation (such as a taxi or private hire transfer) at a set price via an airline’s website or app. CarTrawler presents itself as an intermediary, introducing customers to third-party transport suppliers and disclaiming that it is not the provider of the transportation. This analysis examines whether, in law, CarTrawler’s role in setting fares and dispatching drivers makes it a private hire vehicle (PHV) operator (i.e. a transport operator) rather than a mere agent. We assess this under UK law – including the landmark UTAG v TfL (2021) High Court judgment – and EU law (notably the CJEU’s Uber decisions). Potential licensing breaches и VAT implications are addressed, including the effect of recent EU VAT reforms. Finally, we consider the exposure of partner airlines that resell CarTrawler-powered ground transport services.

CarTrawler’s Business Model and Role

CarTrawler’s platform is integrated with over 70 airlines and many travel companies worldwide. For example, airlines like easyJet и Emirates invite their customers to “book a transfer” through a CarTrawler-powered interface. The customer is quoted a fare (set by CarTrawler’s system) for the selected journey, and CarTrawler’s network then assigns a local driver or transport provider to fulfill the ride. In substance, CarTrawler’s system controls key terms of the transaction: it sets or at least fixes the price the passenger pays and selects the driver or operating company to undertake the journey. By setting the price CarTrawler hails the offer to customers.

CarTrawler’s contractual terms emphasize an agency model. CarTrawler states that it “introduce[s] customers to ground transportation services” and that once the booking is made, the actual transportation provider becomes the party responsible for providing the service. The terms on an airline’s site (powered by CarTrawler) stipulate that CarTrawler is not providing the transportation and is not a party to the transport contract. In essence, CarTrawler portrays itself as a facilitator that arranges bookings on the customer’s behalf with licensed local operators or drivers. The legal question, however, is whether this characterization aligns with regulatory reality. If CarTrawler is effectively setting fares, setting vehicle categories (economy, business etc.), accepting the booking, assigning drivers  and organizing the ride, then under relevant law it may be deemed the principal operator of the service, regardless of what its contracts say.

UK Regulatory Framework for Private Hire Operators

Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) laws in the UK impose strict licensing requirements on those who arrange rides. In London, the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 provides that “no person shall in London make provision for the invitation or acceptance of, or accept, private hire bookings” without holding a PHV operator’s licence. In other words, any business that invites customers to request rides or that accepts a booking for a car with driver is deemed a PHV operator and must be licensed. A similar regime applies elsewhere in England and Wales under the Закон о местном самоуправлении (различные положения) 1976 года, which local authorities adopt to regulate private hire. A licensed PHV operator is typically responsible for accepting the booking and dispatching a licensed vehicle and driver to complete the journey, often called the “triple lock” (operator, driver, and vehicle all licensed by the same authority). Operating without the requisite licence is a criminal offence under these statutes.

Notably, PHV operator licensing was historically interpreted to allow an operator to act merely as an agent for drivers. Many minicab firms treated the contract for carriage as between the passenger and the driver (with the firm just facilitating). This meant the operator did not assume direct liability for the ride and also had tax advantages (most individual drivers were below the VAT threshold, so no VAT was added to fares). However, recent court decisions have clarified and altered this understanding, as discussed below.

UTAG v TfL

 (2021) – Operator vs Agent Clarified

На сайте United Trade Action Group (UTAG) Ltd v Transport for London [2021] EWHC 3290 (Admin), the High Court decisively rejected the notion that a PHV operator can be a mere agent for drivers. The case arose from Uber’s and Free Now’s operating models. Uber (supported by Free Now) sought a declaration that accepting a booking as an agent (with the driver as principal) would satisfy the law. The High Court disagreed. It held that under the 1998 Act, a licensed operator who accepts a booking must undertake it as a principal contractor with the passenger. In the court’s words, “acceptance of a booking by the operator will create a contract between the operator and the passenger” by which the operator undertakes to provide the transportation service as principal (i.e. to send a vehicle and driver to carry the passenger). The operator cannot evade this obligation by claiming to act on behalf of the driver. This ruling made clear that Uber’s previous model (disclaiming itself as merely an agent arranging contracts between rider and driver) was inconsistent with the intent of the law. Uber and similar app-based or web-based as in case with CarTrawler firms were required to change their business model to contract directly with passengers rather than classifying themselves as agents.

“If it looks like Uber, works like Uber, and earns like Uber, then it should be operating like Uber.”

Importantly, this principle is not limited to London. In 2023, in Uber Britannia Ltd v Sefton Borough Council (a case concerning the 1976 Act outside London), the High Court confirmed that all PHV operators throughout England and Wales are under the same obligation to contract as principals with passengers. In short, any entity that accepts a private hire booking is legally the operator and bears direct responsibility for the journey – this holds true whether the booking is made via phone, office, or an app. The courts emphasized that this interpretation furthers public safety: passengers know the licensed operator is accountable for the ride, and regulators can hold operators to account for service standards.

Key consequences of these rulings include:

• A company in the business of arranging rides cannot act merely as an “agent” for drivers in the eyes of the law. If it takes the booking, it is the contractual counterparty to the passenger.
  
• The initial operator remains responsible even if the ride is subcontracted to another licensed operator. The original operator still has a contract with the passenger to fulfil the booking.
  
• All PHV operators must hold a valid operator’s licence and must comply with operator obligations (record-keeping, driver and vehicle use, fare transparency, etc.), since they are providing the service.
  
• The regulatory fiction that the driver is solely responsible for the customer (with the booking service just connecting the two) is no longer tenable for PHV bookings. In practical terms, Uber, Free Now, and all similar platforms now operate as licensed PHV operators in London and must assume the legal liabilities of an operator. This brought such platforms into line with traditional minicab firms (while upending the prior agency rationale those firms had relied on).
  

Is CarTrawler a PHV Operator under UK Law?

Applying the above precedents, CarTrawler’s activities in arranging ground transportation arguably meet the definition of a PHV operator in the UK. CarTrawler invites and accepts bookings for journeys that will be carried out by another entity’s car and driver. The booking is made on CarTrawler’s platform (often via a co-branded airline website), there is no driver presented on the website (instead of driver it is a CarTrawler who presented fare, category and selects driver for a ride), meaning CarTrawler is the entity that “accepts” the customer’s request and payment. It then dispatches a driver/vehicle from its or subcontractors network to perform the trip. According to the High Court’s interpretation of the law, this makes CarTrawler (and not just the individual driver or local supplier) the contractually obligated provider of the transportation service. In short, CarTrawler would be deemed the PHV operator for these bookings – even if its terms of service claim otherwise – because it exercises control over the acceptance and fulfillment of the ride.

If CarTrawler is acting as an operator, the next question is whether it holds the necessary licences. CarTrawler is based in Ireland and presents itself as a technology company, not a licensed minicab office. There is no indication that CarTrawler holds a London PHV operator’s licence or licenses from UK local authorities for private hire operations. Yet by making provision for the invitation of bookings in London (via airline partners’ websites accessible to London customers) and by accepting those bookings, CarTrawler would fall within the scope of Section 2 of the 1998 Act. Absent a licence, such activity is unlawful – a criminal offence punishable by fines. The same would apply in any UK jurisdiction that requires PHV operator licensing: to legally arrange a private hire journey, one must be a licensed operator.

CarTrawler might argue that it is not “accepting” the booking in London because the actual trip is fulfilled by a licensed partner on the ground (for instance, a local car service that делает hold a licence). However, UK law also covers those who “make provision for the invitation” of private hire bookings. CarTrawler sets a price instead of the driver, creates virtual vehicle categories and images representing hypothetical vehicles, and then combines these elements into a virtual product offered to customers. Consequently, CarTrawler invites customers to purchase a product substantially different from the final product provided by the actual licensed driver, who displays real vehicle images and sets their own prices as required by their PHV license.

By partnering with airlines to solicit transfer bookings from passengers, CarTrawler is inviting bookings in licensed territories. Moreover, even if CarTrawler immediately transmits the booking to a subcontracted local operator, the law (as confirmed by Uber Britannia v Sefton) would treat CarTrawler as remaining contractually bound to the passenger. In other words, subcontracting does not absolve the initial booking platform of operator responsibility. Thus, unless CarTrawler itself has obtained PHV operator licences (for example, by registering a UK entity and licensed operating centre), it risks operating outside the law.

In summary, CarTrawler’s UK operations – setting fares and dispatching drivers for hire – strongly suggest that it is acting as an unlicensed PHV operator. This raises regulatory compliance issues: Transport for London or local councils could view each CarTrawler-arranged airport transfer in their jurisdiction as an illegal booking. To date, enforcement attention has largely focused on high-profile apps like Uber. But the UTAG precedent would apply equally to CarTrawler’s model. It stands that a company “accepting a booking … undertakes as principal to provide the vehicle and driver”. By doing so without a licence, CarTrawler (and potentially the airlines facilitating these bookings) may be in breach of UK law.

EU Law: CJEU Decisions on Uber and “Transportation Services”

European case law reinforces the view that platforms like CarTrawler are not mere passive intermediaries when they play an organizing role in transport services. In the landmark CJEU judgment in Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi v. Uber (Case C-434/15, 20 Dec 2017), the Court examined Uber’s app-based service and ruled that it “must be classified as a service in the field of transport”, not as an information society service. The Court noted that Uber’s intermediation is inextricably linked to the underlying transport: Uber recruits non-professional drivers, sets the fare, и exercises decisive influence over the conditions of the service provided to passengers. Specifically, Uber controls essential elements - он impinges on the price of the service and the conduct of drivers, and without Uber’s platform, the drivers would not have access to riders. Because of this control, Uber was deemed more than a simple matchmaking software; it is effectively a transport operator subject to transport regulations.

Following from that classification, the CJEU held that Uber cannot claim the protections of the EU e-commerce or services directives to avoid local transport laws. Instead, each Member State can regulate Uber’s service as it sees fit (including requiring licenses, standards, or even prohibiting unlicensed operations). This precedent has broad implications: any platform that similarly organizes and influences the performance of transport services will be treated as providing transport, not merely digital intermediation.

A subsequent case, Uber France SAS (Case C-320/16, 2018), reaffirmed this. Uber was prosecuted in France for running an illegal taxi service via its UberPop offering (which used unlicensed drivers). Uber argued that France’s law was an unjustified restriction on an information society service. The CJEU rejected that defense, confirming that Uber’s service is in the transport field and thus France could enforce its licensing and criminal laws against Uber without needing to notify the European Commission. In essence, EU law recognizes that a company in CarTrawler’s position – coordinating setting fares and assigning drivers for rides for remuneration – is a transport service provider. It cannot hide behind being a “tech platform” to circumvent taxi and private hire regulations.

Applying this to CarTrawler: If CarTrawler arranges transportation in various EU countries, it would be viewed under EU jurisprudence as a transport intermediary service with transport as its main component, akin to Uber. CarTrawler, like Uber, sets the price and assigns the trip to a driver or transport firm. These are exactly the elements of “decisive influence” that the CJEU identified (price-setting, controlling the essential conditions of the ride). Therefore, CarTrawler’s service is “inherently linked to transport” and can be subjected to each nation’s transport operator licensing rules. For example, in Spain or France, operators of taxi or private hire services must be licensed; an unlicensed entity arranging rides could face sanctions for facilitating illegal taxi operations. CarTrawler’s model, absent local licensing be seen as analogous to UberPop – essentially operating a transport service without authority.

It is worth noting that CarTrawler typically works with licensed local transport providers (e.g. licensed private hire firms or taxi companies in the destination city). This means the driver and vehicle usually have whatever local license is required to carry passengers. However, the act of organizing the service (taking the booking, setting the fare and assigning driver) is itself often a licensable activity (as with the UK’s operator licence requirement). Many EU jurisdictions require that the even a dispatch of a hire vehicle be done by a licensed entity. If CarTrawler is not itself licensed, the legality may hinge on whether the booking is considered to be taken by the local partner or by CarTrawler. Given the CJEU’s stance, regulators and courts are likely to scrutinize the экономическая реальность over formalistic contract terms. Economically, the customer books with CarTrawler’s platform (often paying online to CarTrawler or the airline) and CarTrawler then “provides … a vehicle and driver to the agreed destination” – the hallmark of being an operator. Thus, CarTrawler runs a risk of being found to be an unlicensed transport operator in EU countries if it has not conformed to local laws. 

In summary, EU case law aligns with the UK position: a business that accepts ride bookings and controls key provisions and performance of those rides is a transport operator, not a mere passive agent. CarTrawler falls in this category, meaning it must comply with the relevant national transport regulations (such as obtaining private hire operator licences, where required, or ensuring its role is covered under a partner’s licence). Failure to do so could be deemed unlawful operation of a transport service in those jurisdictions.

VAT Implications of CarTrawler’s Model

Beyond licensing, CarTrawler’s classification as principal operator has significant Налог на добавленную стоимость (НДС) implications. In the UK, as in the EU, passenger transport by taxi or hire car is a taxable supply (standard-rated unless a specific exemption applies). Historically, many rideshare and minicab platforms avoided charging VAT on the full fare by treating the driver as an independent business and themselves as an agent. Since most individual drivers earned below the VAT registration threshold, the fares went untaxed, giving platforms like Uber a 20% price advantage over traditional taxi firms (which did charge VAT).

However, once the courts determined that operators must contract with passengers as principals, it followed that the operator is making the supply of transport to the passenger and must account for VAT on those fares (provided the operator is VAT-registered, as any large-scale business would be). In the UK, after the UTAG judgment, Transport for London required all licensed private hire operators to start charging VAT on rides. Uber subsequently registered for VAT and began adding 20% VAT to its London trip fares in 2022, and later across the UK, to comply with its new status as principal. Indeed, Uber (joined by other operators) actually welcomed this “level playing field” outcome, since it meant their competitors also must levy VAT, removing the previous disparity. The UK Government is now considering reforms to ensure all private hire journeys nationwide incur VAT in light of these legal clarifications. In short, under UK law today, any company that is a PHV operator is responsible for charging VAT on the full fare of each ride (unless an exemption or zero-rating applies, which it generally does not for taxis).

If CarTrawler has until now considered itself merely an intermediary, it may not have been accounting for VAT on the full price of rides. CarTrawler (as an Irish company) presumably charges commission or receives payment from customers and then pays the subcontractors or local provider. It likely did not add UK VAT to customer charges for a UK ride if it took the view that the local driver was the supplier. This could mean a significant underpayment of VAT if, legally, CarTrawler was the supplier all along. UK tax authorities (HMRC) have shown interest in this area – Uber’s change in status led to large VAT settlements for past periods. If CarTrawler’s model is found non-compliant, both CarTrawler and its partner airlines might face liability for VAT not charged on historic rides sold to UK consumers.

In the EU, a similar issue exists. Many drivers or small transport firms that CarTrawler uses are not registered for VAT (EU studies found up to 70% of platform service providers are not VAT-registered). This results in VAT leakage and competitive inequality, as traditional taxi companies must charge VAT while platform-mediated rides often slip through the cracks. EU authorities are moving to close this gap. In fact, the EU’s “VAT in the Digital Age” (ViDA) reforms, adopted in 2025, specifically target the platform economy. Under new rules (effective by 2025–2028 timeframe), digital platforms facilitating passenger transport will be deemed the supplier for VAT purposes when the underlying transport provider is not handling the VAT. Essentially, the platform will be required to collect and remit VAT on the fare to the customer, while the underlying driver’s supply to the platform is disregarded or made VAT-exempt. These rules mean that even if CarTrawler tried to maintain an agency fiction, EU law will impose VAT liability on CarTrawler for rides it facilitates in the EU (in cases where the actual driver or local partner doesn’t handle VAT). The result is a level playing field: the fare for a CarTrawler-arranged taxi in (say) France will carry French VAT, just as if a local taxi firm provided it, eliminating any advantage gained by misclassifying the transaction.

From a compliance perspective, CarTrawler and its airline partners should be proactive in adjusting to these VAT obligations. If CarTrawler is indeed the principal provider of transport services, it must register for VAT in each jurisdiction where rides are supplied and start charging VAT on customer fares. Failure to do so not only risks tax non-compliance but could be seen as an extension of unlawful operation (since charging VAT is part-and-parcel of acting as a legitimate transport business). Airlines selling these transfers could also be held jointly or secondarily liable for VAT if they are considered to be acting as re-sellers. For instance, if an airline bundles a ground transfer as part of a ticket package or markets it as its own service, the airline might need to account for VAT or ensure CarTrawler does. The EU ViDA rules explicitly hold platforms accountable for VAT, which would apply to many airline–CarTrawler arrangements going forward.

In summary, the clarification of CarTrawler’s role as an operator mandates a shift from a VAT-free (or VAT-minimized) model to one where VAT is collected on rides. Continuing to treat these services as mere tax-exempt intermediation would be contrary to both the evolved UK legal position and impending EU VAT law.

Liability of Partner Airlines Using CarTrawler

A number of airlines have integrated CarTrawler’s ground transport booking engine to offer convenience to their passengers. Airlines including easyJet, Jet2, Ryanair, KLM, Air France, Emirates, and United (among many others) are publicly noted as CarTrawler partners. These airlines advertise or allow booking of “airport transfers” or taxi services on their websites, often as an add-on during the flight booking process or via confirmation emails. While the branding and terms usually indicate a partnership (e.g. “service powered by CarTrawler”), from a customer’s perspective the airline is facilitating the ride booking. This entangles the airline in the legal considerations discussed above.

Licensing exposure: If the act of inviting and accepting a PHV booking without a licence is illegal (as per UK law), an airline that invites its UK-based customers to book a car transfer seen as “making provision for the invitation of a private hire booking” in the UK. For example, if easyJet’s website allows a London passenger to book a private transfer from Heathrow to Central London via CarTrawler, easyJet is effectively hosting the booking interface. One could argue that easyJet is facilitating an unlicensed booking unless CarTrawler or another entity in the chain holds a PHV operator licence for London. The precise allocation of responsibility would depend on facts (whose system technically “accepts” the booking?). However, regulators or claimants could potentially include the airline in enforcement actions, claiming the airline aided and abetted unlicensed operations or itself operated without a licence. At the very least, there is a reputational risk: airlines may be seen as profiting from a service that flouts local transport laws. Airlines should conduct due diligence to ensure that any ground transfer services they sell comply with local licensing – either by CarTrawler obtaining operator licences or routing bookings to licensed operators properly.

Notably, some airlines explicitly distance themselves contractually. For instance, easyJet’s terms for ancillary services state that for “airport transfers” the booking is through the partner site and subject to CarTrawler’s terms. This is an attempt to make clear the airline is not the contractual operator. Such terms might offer some defense (the airline as pure referrer). Nonetheless, simply handing off liability on paper may not immunize the airline if authorities view the entire arrangement as a sham to evade licensing. The UTAG judgment’s logic could implicate any party orchestrating bookings in practice, regardless of contractual fine print.

VAT and tax liability: Airlines partnering with CarTrawler often earn commission or a share of the ancillary revenue from each booking. If the underlying fares should have had VAT applied (but were sold without VAT), tax authorities could potentially pursue the airlines for unpaid VAT on the margin they received. Additionally, if an airline is deemed to be reselling the transport to its customer (for example, an airline sells a holiday package that includes a CarTrawler transfer), the airline might itself be considered the supplier for VAT. In the UK, that could require the airline to charge 20% VAT on the transfer portion. In the EU, the new platform economy rules might treat the airline itself as facilitating the supply. Given that airlines are generally large taxable businesses, they have no threshold exemption and would be accountable for VAT if they are seen as supplying the service. Airlines could also be required to issue proper VAT invoices to customers for the transfer service – something they likely are not doing currently if it’s handled by CarTrawler as an “agent”.

Furthermore, airlines should be aware of package travel regulations if they sell transfers together with flights. Under the EU Package Travel Directive (and UK Package Travel Regulations), adding an airport transfer to a flight booking could make the airline the “organiser” of a package, with attendant liabilities for the proper performance of that transport. If the transfer ends up not being delivered or is delivered negligently, the airline might face claims from the traveller regardless of the CarTrawler terms. This adds another layer of incentive for airlines to ensure that CarTrawler’s offering is fully legal and insured, because the airline’s brand will be seen as endorsing the service.

Airlines like easyJet и Emirates (both of whom promote CarTrawler-powered transfers) could potentially be in breach of UK law and EU consumer protection law by facilitating these services without the proper legal framework in place.

Заключение

In conclusion, CarTrawler’s model of setting prices and dispatching drivers places it squarely in the role of a transport operator, not a mere intermediary. Under UK law, especially after UTAG v TfL (2021), there is little doubt that a company accepting a private hire booking must do so as principal operator. CarTrawler’s activities meet that criterion, and if it lacks PHV operator licences, it is likely operating unlawfully in the UK by taking bookings for hire cars without authorization. The same reasoning extends to the EU: CJEU jurisprudence (the Uber cases) establishes that such platforms are subject to local transport rules and cannot avoid licensing by labeling themselves as mere “tech providers”. CarTrawler, by controlling pricing and vehicle assignment, should be viewed as a transport service provider in each jurisdiction it serves, requiring compliance with taxi/PHV regulations.

Additionally, the VAT treatment of CarTrawler-facilitated rides must align with the reality that CarTrawler (and not individual drivers) is providing the service. Both UK authorities and EU law reforms insist that VAT be collected on rides arranged by platforms, closing the loophole of pretending the platform is an untaxed agent. If CarTrawler and its partner airlines have been avoiding VAT by misclassification, that practice will not withstand legal scrutiny and forthcoming rules. They may face financial liabilities for past VAT, and going forward must charge VAT on these services to avoid unlawful tax evasion.

Finally, airlines partnering with CarTrawler should recognize the legal risks. By acting as the sales channel for what is effectively an unlicensed (or un-taxed) transport operation, airlines like easyJet, Jet2, Ryanair and others could find themselves complicit in regulatory breaches. They might be required to obtain their own operator licences or cease offering such transfers unless CarTrawler’s service is brought into compliance. At minimum, airlines will need to adjust their VAT accounting and customer terms to reflect the true nature of the service.

The regulatory trend is clear: authorities expect platforms arranging transportation to assume full legal responsibility as operators – this includes holding licences, ensuring driver and vehicle compliance, passenger safety obligations, and tax duties. CarTrawler’s business model, as innovative and convenient as it is, cannot sidestep these requirements. To avoid enforcement action in the UK and EU, CarTrawler will need to either work as Uber or significantly change its role. The partner airlines, as beneficiaries of CarTrawler’s services, should proactively ensure these legal issues are addressed to mitigate their own exposure.

Источники:

• Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, Section 2 ; Local Government (Misc Provisions) Act 1976 (operator licensing provisions).
  
• UTAG v TfL [2021] EWHC 3290 (Admin) (High Court judgment) ; Uber Britannia Ltd v Sefton MBC [2023] EWHC 1731 (Admin).
  
• Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 (Supreme Court obiter remarks on PHV contracts).
  
• CJEU Judgment in Elite Taxi v Uber (Case C-434/15, 20 Dec 2017) ; CJEU Judgment in Uber France (Case C-320/16, 10 Apr 2018).
  
• Tax Adviser Magazine – “VAT treatment of private hire vehicles” (Bill Dodwell, Apr 2024).
  
• EU Council, “VAT in the Digital Age” reforms (adopted Mar 2025).