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 
Tribunal will not return scaffolding vehicle
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL has upheld the refusal of the South-Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner Christopher Heaps to return an impounded vehicle to Lakha Scaffolding.
The vehicle, impounded by Vosa last August, bore the company's livery and was driven by Lakhbir Singh Khakh. He told the traffic examiner he was working for his brother, Balihar Singh Khakh, who owned the company. Balihar Khakh subsequently told the traffic examiner that, earlier in the year, he had been convicted and fined £400 for the unauthorised use of a vehicle by the Guildford magistrates. It also transpired, through a company search, that he was actually the company secretary.The sole director was Mrs Randeep Khakh.
The company sought the return of the vehicle on the grounds that it did not know that it was being used without an 0-licence. In refusing to return the vehicle, the TC concluded the company knew that it was being used without licence authority.
According to the Tribunal, a notice of appeal had been received from Randeep Khakh, in which she stated she was not aware in her capacity as director that the company needed an 0-licence.
She also stated that Balihar Khakh's conviction had arisen when he was in another employment and that the company had not been aware of it. In a further letter, she stated that, as the company director and owner of the vehicle in question, she was unaware of the need for a licence.
However, the correspondence appeared to be an attempt to introduce fresh evidence, and it raised more questions than it answered.The original application was made by Balihar Khakh, who appeared to he the driving force behind the company.Balihar Khakh's relationship with Randeep Khakh had not been explained, and her attempts now to distance herself from him and his conviction appeared to be disingenuous,