According to their twitter page, yesterday Friday the 30th of May, the LTDA formally applied for summonses against 6 uber drivers for offences under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998.
The LTDA have stated from day one, that the demo to be held on June 11th is not about the Uber issue. It's solely about the incompetent administration of the a Taxi and Private hire industries by TfL. Uber is just a small part of their incompetence.
However, TfL's PR department has gone into melt down.
The worlds media have been fed story after story about how the "Greedy London Cabbies" are up in arms at a bit of competition from a TfL stakeholder.
The media in the United States are all carrying stories of how the London Taxi drivers are going to bring London to its knees because they don't like the heat of competition from the billion dollar backed American company, who's business is registered in the tax heaven of Holland.
Our own press are full of the same type of stories, plus BBC, ITV and LBC are all going with the Uber theme to the June Demo.
Not one story in any form of media, has gone with the truth.
TfL have decided to defuse the situation by asking a high court judge to define the meaning of the word "Taximeter".
Why wasn't this done when Uber first applied for an operators licence two years ago?
Suddenly, after news of a Taxi Trade demonstration, TfL now need a judge to give them a definition, of a word they have been using in respect of the administration of the Private Hire Act for the passed 14 years.
Are TfL now a Licensing Authority with no authority?
Are they finally admitting the the Private a Hire Act 1998 is unclear and unenforceable?
Thinking that this action could take years to come to fruition, they now believe this should be enough to defer any impending demo and have asked the LTDA to postpone any action until after a legally binding judgement has been made.
Well think again TfL.
The demo was never about Uber
It has always been about TfL's incompetent administration and the fact they are totally failing taxi and private hire drivers, plus putting public safety at risk on a daily basis.
EDITORIAL COMMENT: An authority, out of control?
Let's just remind ourselves that back in 2007 when satellite offices first became common place, head of Cab Enforecment Unit Joe Royal state that in his opinion these new licences were unenforceable.
And with the benefit of hindsight, Joe was bang on the button.
Why was the need for planning permission for PH operators licences dropped?
Why was TfL's policy in respect of the acquisition of licence variation changed in 2012?
Allowing operators to recieve multiple licences without the requirement of being in business for a minimum of one year.
Why were Uber granted a Private Hire licence having no landline facility for taking booking?
Did a TfL compliance team check out Uber's facilities before granting the licence?
Why have TfL cut enforcement manpower to the bone?
Why have TfL adopted a blind eye attitude to illegal plying for hire?
Questions that need to be addressed.
As always, space will be made available on this blog, should TfL wish to answer these questions.