UBER was accused of being "a company for the fit and able" by a councillor at a marathon seven-hour meeting today.

Representatives of the taxi-hailing app defended the firm in the face of allegations it was not a fit and proper entity to hold a licence to operate in Brighton and Hove, at the meeting of the city council panel to review its licence.

Uber promised it would have twenty wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs) in its fleet by the time it reaches 100 cars in the city, although spokesmen failed to provide concrete plans for how they would achieve that. Uber currently has 62 drivers licensed by the city but no WAVs.

The meeting heard warm praise for Uber from customers and fierce criticism from the taxi trade.

Sunetta Kiarie, 25, a Brighton charity worker told the Hove Town Hall meeting she had always found taking an Uber to be a safe, professional and clean experience.

She added: "Brighton is a city rife with innovation which would be foolish not to take the opportunity to support this innovative company."

Resident Claire Alcock praised its convenience, real-time tracking and accountability.

Caroline Jones said: "Who cares where the drivers come from?

"I’ve never had bad service or an unlikeable driver. Uber provides what I need. It would be a shame to lose it.”

But Gerald Gourier QC, speaking for the city's taxi firms, said Uber has operated in Brighton "in such a way as to drive a coach and horses through local licensing controls" since it started operating in October 2016.

Brighton and Hove has some of the toughest taxi licensing rules in the country, known as the Blue Book, which include a requirement for cars to have CCTV and a quota for WAVs.

But Mr Gourier said there was "no point" having the Blue Book when Uber allowed cars licensed in other authorities with less stringent rules to operate in the city.

Andy Peters of the GMB union, Mark Durell of the Brighton and Hove private hire association, and Sean Ridley of the Unite union also criticised the practice and the fleet's lack of WAVs.

They slammed Uber for its 2016 data breach in which customers' names email addresses and mobile phone numbers were stolen by hackers.

Charles Holland, barrister for united taxi drivers association said Uber had not offered to help affected customers, saying: "They just don't get it."

The licensing panel of Councillor Jacqui O'Quinn (Lab), Councillor Lynda Hyde (Con) and Councillor Lizzie Deane (Green), interrogated the speakers, including with some quite basic questions.

Councillor O'Quinn asked Uber driver Peter Woodcock to explain what happens when a rider hails an Uber, and Councillor Deane asked whether the city's existing private hire firms would ever have apps of their own - which they have had for some time.

The Argus has learned none of the three councillors has the Uber app or has ever hailed an Uber, although Councillor O'Quinn has travelled in one with a friend.

Defending his client, Uber barrister Philip Kolvin said the company was not trying was not trying to “skirt round” the city’s regulations but had recently regionalised its business to prevent London-licensed drivers from operating in the city.

It has also created a £1,000 incentive scheme to get drivers licensed in Brighton.

An Uber spokesman told The Argus those policies came into being on March 14.

Councillor Deane accused the company of being "for the fit and able" and all three councillors queried the firm's promise to have 20 WAVs by the time it has 100 cars.

Uber head of cities Fred Jones said it would use a "stick and carrot" approach to hit the target, including possible financial incentives to encourage drivers to buy WAVs.

Uber drivers have provided lifts to more than 200,000 people in Brighton and Hove since it started operating 19 months ago.

A decision on the licence, which expires in May, will be announced on Wednesday morning.

But even if the panel revokes the licence, Uber cars licensed elsewhere will still be entitled to work in the city.