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 
OTC to Crompton: le will
Page 8
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
be keeping an eye on you
• by Michael Jewell An Ormskirk haulier who lost his Operator's Licence after he and his brother threatened officials at the close of a Public Inquiry, has succeeded in winning a fresh licence.
David Crompton, trading as D Crompton Haulage, had sought a new national licence for three vehicles and one trailer before the DTC at a Bury Public Inquiry.
The DTC said that in June 2001, he revoked Crompton's licence because of drivers' hours matters. That decision was overturned on appeal. After he had left the courtroom, an incident occurred involving both Crompton and his brother in which the DTC and others were threatened and abusive language used (CM5-11 July 2001).
As a consequence, Traffic Commissioner Beverley Bell once again revoked the Operator's Licence on the grounds that Crompton had lost his good repute.
For Crompton, John Parsons said that the matter of the previous licence was still unresolved, in that the decision of the Transport Tribunal upholding the second revocation was the subject of an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Although the previous licence had been revoked, Crompton had not been disqualified from holding an 0-licence. He had been driving for 20 years and had never commit
ted a road traffic offence.
The previous licence had been granted in 1994 and no prohibition notices had ever been issued. He was a man of excellent financial standing, and reports from the VI showed that he had an excellent operating centre and facilities. No attempt had been made to operate since the revocation and Crompton reckoned he had suffered a net loss of £26,400 in the 33 weeks he had been off the road.
Crompton's brother was no longer employed by him, now or in the future. A letter of apology had been sent to the traffic examiner.
Referring back to the threats made against him, where he was warned to "sleep with one eye open" by Crompton's brother, the DTC said: "I am looking tired, as I have been sleeping with one eye open since the last time. Nobody has apologised to me."
Crompton said that the comment had been made by his brother Gordon, not him. He added that he did not think his brother had meant to be threatening. "If you get a licence the spotlight will be on you," said the DTC. "You are one of the most well known operators at Hillcrest House. We will be keeping an eye on you."
Crompton told the DTC that all the tachograph charts would be analysed by an outside bureau every four weeks.
He gave an undertaking that his brother would have nothing to do with his business in the future without the permission of the DTC.
Granting the licence, the DTC said that a big plus was that there had been no unauthorised use following the revocation, showing that Crompton at last accepted the authority of the Traffic Commissioners. He had now demonstrated a willingness to play by the rules.