No-show operator loses appeal
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
An operator who failed to attend a public inquiry after a request for an adjournment was refused has lost his appeal against the refusal of his Operator's Licence application, the revocation of his interim licence and his indefinite disqualification from holding an 0-licence.
When Shaun Standen, trading as S&M Transport, applied for a licence for five vehi
cles and five trailers, he gave his correspondence address as Furze Hill, Bodmin, Cornwall, with an operating centre at Western Avenue, Western Docks, Southampton. He also indicated that he had not been declared bankrupt and had no convictions.
But when the application was advertised it provoked allegations that Standen owed money; that there was a county court judgment against him for 218,712.78; and that the creditors' solicitors were planning to start bankruptcy proceedings.
Western Traffic Commissioner Christopher Heaps said he was aware of Standen's six convictions. In view of the vague address of the operating centre, Standen was also asked to submit a map that would identify it.
After being notified of the public inquiry Standen Sought an adjournment so that he could be legally represented, but the TC refused his request.
The Transport Tribunal said two points were advanced on Standen's behalf: first, that the TC had been wrong to refuse an adjournment; second, that an indefinite disqualification was unduly severe because Standen's side of the story had not been heard.
But the tribunal decided that the refusal of the adjournment was justified for several reasons: Standen was operating under an interim licence from an ill-defined operating centre; there were matters that raised serious questions about finance; and there was reason to believe that he had failed to disclose convictions. The TC had a duty to guard against the possibility that Standen was simply buying time.
Turning to the disqualification, the tribunal felt that Standen had been given an opportunity to be heard, but had not taken it up.
Until Standen attended an inquiry to refute the allegations the TC was entitled to proceed on the basis that they were probably true. The TC could not have set a period of disqualification as he had had no chance to hear Standen's explanation, if he had one.
If there was no explanation, the tribunal added, it was clear that Standen was unfit to hold an 0-licence, which meant the disquali fication was justified. •