Taxed trucks off road
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A Shropshire haulier who claims he has not used his vehicles since his licence was revoked last September, despite the fact that they are still taxed, has been ordered to swear an affidavit to that effect by West Midland Traffic Commissioner John Mervyn Pugh.
Peter Court, of NewcastleOn-Clun, Craven Arms, had applied for a new international licence for four vehicles and five trailers.
For Court, Paul Carless said concern had been expressed about a failure to surrender the licence document and discs following the revocation.
However, Court had replied to a letter from the Traffic Area in September saying the licence and discs had been posted and that if there was a problem to get in touch with him. He heard nothing further, and as nobody pursued the matter he assumed they had been received.
Mervyn Pugh pointed out that it was not up to the Traffic Area staff to pursue the licence and discs; the operator had a duty to surrender them in such circumstances. It amazed him how often the Post Office was accused of failing to deliver mail to the Traffic Area.
Asked why the vehicles were still taxed, Court said that he had not returned the tax discs as he had hoped to get interim authority to operate.
Categorically denying that the vehicles had been operated since the revocation.
Court categorically Court said they. denied the vehicles had been . parked up in had been operated Redditch.
since the revocation Adjourning
until the beginning of March, Mervyn Pugh said he required Court to swear an affidavit that the licence and discs had been posted and that the vehicles had not been used. He found it strange that Court had kept the vehicles taxed when he was not using them.
He also wanted an affidavit from the owner of the premises where the vehicles were said to be parked up, to say that they had been parked there and that they had not moved a wheel since the licence was revoked.
He warned Court that should he swear to any fact that was incorrect he would be liable to pr( ,secution for forgery.