jimbo wrote:
Well,well.
Who would have thought it?
Allied will have to say, "back to the drawing board"?
When I suggested some time ago that a change in the COF could be challenged in the Courts, (by LTI) you scoffed, now you say that Allied could challenge a refusal to change? 50,000,000 u-turns?must be OK then.
You never sugested a change could be challenged in the courts, it was I who reminded you that LTI would first have to challenge the legality of the change in condition. You stated LTI would sue, I don't know who you had in mind they would sue but that is exactly what you said.
In respect of Allied, you are conveniently forgetting the reasons for this review? It was Allied who objected to the conditions being unreasonable and the threat of legal action prompted TFL to make a case for retaining the condition. Allied will now have the opportunity to do what they should have done three years ago and challenge the condition on being reasonable.
Your pie in the sky notion about LTI suing, whoever it was you had in mind they were going to sue? Was and still is totally off the wall.
I think you should be reminded what you actually said, seeing as how you are prone to memory lapse. Your initial outburst proclaimed "LTI would sue" but you never said who or why? Only that it would drive them out of business?
It was me, who pointed out to you, that LTI would first have to challenge the changing of the condition and I gave you several definitions how this could be done. The future sales of cabs in London or anywhere else for that matter was not one of them. You do remember saying this don’t you?
Quote: The PCO's quandary is, as I see it, is that if they change the COF so that bread vans fit, LTI would cry foul and sue, (no choice really, it would drive them out of business).
And you do remember me saying this don’t you?
On what grounds would they sue?
And you do recall saying this don't you?
Quote: On the grounds that they invested millions, (well a few bob then), designing and developing a vehicle that meets the required COF, only to be usurped by a company that has the goalposts shifted, that is the COF changed to fit the vehicle. Any change in the COF would be the likely end of LTI. They would have no choice but to sue TfL if they changed the rules to fit.
And you do recall me saying this don’t you?
The laymen amongst us would no doubt assume that LTI would first have to challenge the legality of the decision of TFL to alter the COF, would that be correct? If so on what grounds could LTI challenge such a decision?
Just one final note, this decison by the PCO was expected by most of us on here, we have have been saying it for quite some time so it is no surprise to us.
What Allied do is another matter but if it ever went into court I know which horse I would back?
I did notice that Allied got at least one of the three conditions changed but it will be interesting to see what changes the PCO makes in respect of the visibility condition?
JD
|
