AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Appeals judge reduces David Finch Haulage disqualification

19th August 2010
Page 8
Page 8, 19th August 2010 — Appeals judge reduces David Finch Haulage disqualification
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

roger.hrowniarbi.co.uk AN APPEALS JUDGE has reduced the three-year disqualification for David Finch trading as David Finch Haulage. describing the punishment imposed by Eastern Area Traffic Commissioner (TC) Richard Turfitt as "too long".

Judge Mark Hinchliffe of the Upper Tribunal ordered that the disqualification (which started on 20 March) of the Bury St Edmonds, Suffolk-based haulier. should be reduced to 18 months, saying this adequately reflected "the seriousness of the case': The TC revoked the firm's 0-licence following a public in quiry in March, on the grounds of financial standing, loss of repute, professional competence. unauthorised use of an operating centre, convictions, failure to report the convictions, prohibitions. breach of statements of intent and undertakings, and failure to notify a material change.

In August 2009, David Finch — who was authorised for three vehicles and three trailers — had been convicted of two offences at Huntingdon Magistrates' Court.

He was fined 1.75 for failing to comply with directions to stop by a VOSA officer relating to an overloading incident, and f:115 for a brake components and actuators offence. Finch had also failed to notify the TC's office about a change of address However, Finch appealed the disqualification on the grounds that the three-year disqualification had been "too severe a punishment" for him. Hinchliffc held that the punishment had been "out of step" with the approach generally taken by other TCs.

He added: "The issue that troubled the tribunal to the greatest degree was simply the absence, throughout the hearing, and in the TC's written decision, of any focused discussion as to the need for, length of, or consequences of, a lengthy period of disqualification —and the absence of any intelligible reasons for the decision to not only impose a disqualification, but a E. disqualification of three years."

, FOR THE LATEST NEWS VISIT:

raatcr aitt I row