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 
IC faces challenge from consultants
Page 6
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A TC has stopped tvvo consultants from appearing before him — but they're fighting
back Dominic Perry reports.
THE ALREADY strained relations between transport consultants Alec Hayden and Gerald Hamilton and theTrafficArea Network have plumbed new depths after Hayden and Hamilton were prevented from representing hauliers at public inquiries in front of one Traffic Commissioner.
The virtually unprecedented ruling from South Eastern & Metropolitan TC Christopher Heaps caps a year in which Hamilton, who runs Universal Business Services, and Hayden, boss of TransConsult, have been prevented from representing one operator at a public inquiry in the North Eastern traffic area by TC Tom Macartney (CM 2 September) and Hayden has been heavily criticised by the Transport Tribunal for his "confrontational approach" (CM 4 November).
In October 2003, Hayden and Hamilton each lodged a complaint with the Law Society, which was then referred to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS), urging it to investigate allegations that Heaps had racially discriminated against an operator, one of their former clients, and had acted in a "totally unacceptable and unethical way" at a public inquiry held in Eastbourne on 10 September 2003. Both Hayden and Hamilton attended the public inquiry as observers but were not representing the operator.
The complaints were investigated by the OSS, which decided there was "insufficient evidence to take the complaints further" and closed the file.
After publication of that decision, and Hamilton's appearance at another unrelated public inquiry in Eastbourne, another complaint was made to the OSS that Heaps and his lawyer, Geoffrey Williams QC — had "grossly misled" the OSS. Hayden alleged they had offered "fake" recordings to the OSS, and that they had "misled, misinformed and misrepresented" facts to Hayden and Hamilton. "The whole episode is fraught with lies and untruths" and "stinks of deceit," Hayden claimed.
That complaint was also investigated by the OSS, which decided there was no evidence that it had "been misled, either deliberately or inadvertently".
The regulations state that anyone entitled or permitted to appear at an inquiry might do so by themselves, or be represented by counsel solicitor, or another person, at the discretion of the TC.
Heaps said he had carefully considered whether it would be "appropriate and proportionate" to refuse Hayden and/or Hamilton the right to appear before him at public inquiries.
He was confident that he was able to exercise his powers and duties as a TC unaffected by the complaints made against him by Hayden and Hamilton, but he accepted that operators might challenge his rejection of their representatives. To avoid this, it seemed fair to make a determination under the 1995 regulations that neither Hayden or Hamilton should appear before him to represent operators or applicants.
No representations were made to the TC by Hayden prior to his decision. Hamilton says he posted a response, but it failed to reach the TC's office. He also claims correspondence was not properly addressed to himself, but through Hayden's firm Trans-Consult.
Hayden argues that TC Heaps has acted beyond his powers: "The decision is illegal. He's got no judicial powers to lay down such a decision.! made no representation to Heaps over this because I felt it wasn't necessary. They've got no power and ifs going to come out in the courts and through the proper channels, It's always been a closed shop and it's my intention to rip those shop doors off."
Hamilton adds:"! do not recognise Mr Heaps' decision in the first place. and I will be launching a judicial review of it."