How Come Our Orgs Aren't Demanding Uber's Full Suspension Under Section 26 (2), PHV Act 1998

What exactly have our trade orgs and unions been doing ?
They seem to have accepted that Uber have the right, under the act of 1998 to carry on regardless!

Have they (the orgs and Unions) not read the act?

Where are these fantastic lawyers we've been promised ? 
What is their very expensive opinion?

It doesn't take a genius to read through the act, and find section 26 (2).

Let me lay it up for you, section 26 org the act reads:

 Effect of appeal on decision appealed against.

(1)If any decision of the [F1licensing authority] against which a right of appeal is conferred by this Act—

(a)involves the execution of any work or the taking of any action;

(b)makes it unlawful for any person to carry on a business which he was lawfully carrying on at the time of the decision,

the decision shall not take effect until the time for appealing has expired or (where an appeal is brought) until the appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.


This is what we've been led to believe is the legislation laid down by the act and we've been told there's nothing we can do.....but there is a caveat.... It's in subsection (2).


Effect of appeal on decision appealed against.

(2)This section does not apply in relation to a decision to suspend, vary or revoke a licence if the notice of suspension, variation or revocation directs that, in the interests of public safety, the decision is to have immediate effect.

IN THE INTERESTS OF PUBLIC SAFETY

Isn't this the reason TfL have given for not renewing Uber's operating licence....or are we not being told the full story here?




from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2ARtrLi
via IFTTT http://ift.tt/eA8V8J $10 FREE NOW TO START AND EARN MORE ON AUTOPILOT http://ift.tt/2zopSjz