AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

BRE" No show no licence

19th November 1998
Page 22
Page 22, 19th November 1998 — BRE" No show no licence
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?

• A County Durham haulier who refused to attend a public inquiry because he did not believe his company would get a fair hearing has lost his appeal against the rejection of its licence bid.

North Eastern Deputy Traffic Commissioner Brian Horner had refused to grant Crook-based Randall & Co, trading as Durham Transport Services, a licence for three vehicles and two trailers. The company had been operating under interim authority since September 1997 and it was told issues of financial standing, overloading and vehicle maintenance would be considered.

A vehicle examiner said he had issued a prohibition notice to one of the company's vehicles for brake defects; the inspection records and driver defect reporting system were said to be unsatisfactory.

Although some financial documents had been submitted, no up-to-date financial information was available to the Deputy TC at the time of the public inquiry in April.

Refusing the application, the Deputy TC said he was not satisfied the company had sufficient finance readily available to operate the vehicles which were the subject of the application—nor those in possession.

Before the Tribunal, director William Troup said there was a long history of confrontation with the Traffic Area Office and the vehicle examiner concerned. The company had known the inquiry was taking place but had decided not to attend as it did not believe it would get a fair hearing. Troup said he had shown Traffic Area staff £6,000 in a company bank account, unbanked cheques and a building society pass book.

Dismissing the appeal, the Transport Tribunal said the time to have aired these allegations was at the public inquiry. Troup was seeking to admit fresh evidence which he had failed to put before the Deputy TC.

In the absence of the company there was no evidence before the Deputy TC of its current financial position. He had no alternative but to refuse the application and to order the end of interim authority.

It was important that operators who were called to a public inquiry should realise the likely consequences if, without good reason, they failed to attend.

Tags

Locations: Durham

comments powered by Disqus