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 
Operator pleading ignorance of 0-licensing loses its trucks
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Removals firm flouts law but pleads ignorance.
A WELSH removals firm has failed to have its impounded three-vehicle fleet returned after a TC heard that the company held no Operator's Licence despite two warnings in the past year. Although in business for 15 years the company's sole director, Robert Poyner, claimed ignorance of the licensing legislation.
Newport-based A&R Removals was first warned in September 2002 after Traffic Examiner Robert Williams spotted one of its trucks parked on the company's site without an 0-licence disc. He told Welsh Traffic Commissioner David Dixon that he advised Poyner to apply for an 0-licence.
However, in July, Williams noticed an A&R vehicle unloading from a house without an 0licence displayed. He contacted Poyner who said he would get back to him with details of the licence but failed to do so.
Williams told the TC that he was fully convinced that Poyner knew that he needed an 0-licence. "I am 100% certain it was made perfectly clear."
Williams said that Poyner had claimed that the vehicles were on a licence held by Atwell Haulage but there were no Atwell discs in the vehicles. When he checked with Atwell Haulage it confirmed there were no A&R vehicles on its licence.
"Poyner was in no doubt what was required to operate the business," he told the TC.
Traffic examiner Robert Frampton said that he interviewed Poyner in July. He reminded Poyner of the September 2002 visit and asked him again if he had applied for a licence.
Poyner mentioned a licence held by Paul Clifford. The TC was told that Poyner had purchased a vehicle from Clifford in April but the excise licence disc had expired. A check with DVLA showed that all three vehicles were registered to A&R Removals. He had no doubt that they had been used without the authority of an 0-licence and he had had no compunction in impounding them.
As soon as Poyner was made aware of the impounding he was fully co-operative, claiming that he had misunderstood what had been said on the first occasion in September 2002. However, he was absolutely sure that Poyner was aware of the need for a licence and in fact a licence application had been submitted on 23 July. Poyncr was adamant that he was unaware that the company needed a licence. He agreed that he had been in business for 15 years but said that he thought that the carriage of domestic goods was exempt. He had only started using larger vehicles 12 months ago.
He told the TC that he was naive and didn't know the law, but was getting it sorted out. He eventually contacted a firm of transport consultants. "I was not as switched on as I should have been," said Poyner.
Asked why he had not responded to the vehicle examiner in July, Poyner said: "I went out of my mind. I knew I had done wrong and had to get something sorted out."
Refusing to return the vehicles, the TC said that Poyner had been told on two occasions that he needed a licence and, on that basis, it was difficult to conclude that he did not know. Any active businessman of 15 years experience should have a fair degree of intelligence and common sense to understand what he was being told. He believed that Poyner was aware that he needed an 0-licence before he obtained the vehicles.