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
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224 
J&J Asphalt denied trucks
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A former Manchester haulier has failed In his bid to have two impounded vehicles returned to him. Stretford-based James Brandrett, trading as J&J Asphalt, had sought the return of the vehicles before the North Western Deputy Traffic Commissioner Patrick Mulvenna.
The TC was told that an Operator's licence held by Brandrett had expired in the summer of 2001 Brandrett told the DIG that under the previous licence he had operated 10 artics working for P&O. He had given up the job because of the driver shortage and a fatality involving one of his drivers on the M56 motorway.
He had been out of work for a period but was then offered the fires current employment. He had not thought he needed an 0-licence as they were carrying their own goods, He had taken out a 19,500 loan to buy the vehicles, which he still had to make payments on (0M6-12 March).
Refusing to return the vehicles, the DTC said that Brandrett had admitted during the hearing that he had still not made an application for an 0-licence and that the impounded vehicles had been used to carry goods In connection with his business without an 0-licence.
There were discrepancies in the information given In the application for release of the impounded vehicles and in Brandrett's evidence at the hearing.
Firstly, he said that the vehicles were purchased in January for a contract with the Electricity Board. However, In later evidence he said that the vehicles were bought in November 2002 to fulfill a contract offered by Rochdale Council.
The DTC said that these discrepancies, coupled with Brandrett's long association with, and knowledge of, the Oncoming system, cast doubter' the reliability of his evidence. Even if he was given the benefit of the doubt on those matters, his admissions most go against him.
The DIG concluded that the vehicles were properly impounded and that Brandrett had failed to satisfy him that he did reit know the vehicles were being used