1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 
CASE TWO
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Failure to respond leads to revocation
A SCAFFOLDER who ignored requests from Vosa concerning his maintenance regime has lost his appeal against an 0-licence revocation, which he made to the Transport Tribunal.
Croydon-based Mark Harris, who was trading as Metropolitan Scaffolding, had his two-vehicle licence revoked by the South Eastern & Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner, Philip Brown.
Last December, Vosa wrote to Harris at Godric Crescent, New Addington, inviting comments on an adverse report from a vehicle examiner following a maintenance investigation.
No reply was received and a similar letter was sent to Grenville Road, New Addington. Again no reply was received.
The letter asking for comments was repeated and sent to both addresses in February.
In April, the Traffic Area Office (TAO) wrote to both addresses and to the operating centre, Pear Tree Farm, by both first-class post and recorded delivery, asking why no reply had been received to Vosa's letters.
The letters also pointed out that no change of address had been announced, The TC also required financial evidence and Harris was warned that revocation was possible. No reply was received so the licence was revoked.
On 30 May, Harris telephoned the TAO saying that he had replied to the January letters. He claimed he had not received the April letter.
Before the Ihnsport Tribunal, Harris explained that he had not received the letters subsequent to 28 January. Harris could not understand why some of the letters had been sent to his old address because he had outlined his change of address. Vosa and the TAO must have known of his new address because they had sent letters to it.
The Tribunal said that it did not know of any reason why letters were sent to two addresses, and whether or not a change of address had been received.
It should have been clear to Harris that his letter to Vosa had not been received, because the organisation had continued to write to him over the maintenance issues that had been raised.