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 
Tribunal urges a hearing to reconsider 0-licence
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Transport Tribunal has ruled that the revocation of a Brentford firm's Operator's Licence should be reconsidered by a different Traffic Commissioner.
South Eastern and Metropolitan Deputy TC Alan Bourlet revoked Thames Materials' seven-vehicle licence because of its poor mainte nance history and convictions recorded against the company and two of its drivers since a previous Public Inquiry in 1999.
He made no disqualification order but directed that any fresh licence application by the company or its directors should be heard at a Public Inquiry. Before reaching his decision, he had written to the company inviting written representations about the consequences of revocation, suspension or curtailment of the licence.
Bitu Bhalla, for the company, argued that the DTC had attached considerable significance to a prohibition showing a serious maintenance lapse which he wrongly believed had been imposed during a recent fleet inspection and so should not have merited such weight.
The Tribunal said it seemed that the OTC was probably misled by his brief about the prohibition. it agreed that the company had been deprived of the chance to make representations about future licence application being heard at a Public Inquiry. it also found that the DTC should have offered the company the choice between a further hearing and written representations.
"We appreciate that arranging a further hearing may well be inconvenient but it seems to us that it is the price which has to be paid to ensure a fair and public hearing," the Tribunal concluded.