Why Didn’t TfL Revoke With Immediate Effect?...They Have The Power.

The news that Uber has been refused a new 5 year licence has turned into a massive PR campaign. 

They have embarked on an email campaign to their account holders, which is also being supported by notable celebrities and political figures. 

Uber now have 21 days to register an appeal which will then go through the court process. This could take anything up to 2 years, a period that will allegedly see them operating in the capital without having to cough up the licence fee. 

But there is a burning question in the Taxi trade:

Did our regulator handle this issue to the letter of the law?

Or did they again show favouritism to this company? 

Why have Uber only been told their licence won’t be renewed and allowed to go through the appeal system, when any other PH operator would have had their licence revoked much earlier, when their catalog of disastrous failures first started to hit the headlines. 

Below are two documents.... first one is TfLs statement, re passenger safety. 

The second document is from the  Private Hire act, abstracts of law.

The burning question ....Why didn’t TfL revoke Uber’s operator’s licence, with an immediate effect?

THEY HAVE THE POWER TO DO THIS....

TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT: 
What provision is in place to stop uninsured journeys from taking place?

If  TfLTPH consider Uber not to be Fit and proper on safety grounds, why was 17(2) of the 1998 PH Act not invoked to stop them operating under appeal?


The trade has no alternative but to JR the decision.

With thanks to Heather R and SPD.