Wrong name, right penalty
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The deputy LA for the Scottish traffic area had not erred in principle or acted unreasonably when he considered the case of I. and H. Brown (Plant) Ltd under Section 69. This is the conclusion of the Transport Tribunal in dismissing the firm's appeal against the decision of the deputy LA to remove the margin of three vehicles.
The firm had been called following the issue of four GV9s and two fines, one for a faulty tyre and one for overloading. It had been subMitted at the appeal hearing that the penalty had been too severe, that two of the GV9s did not relate to the firm's operator's licence and that a mistake in the spelling of the firm had been made in Applications and Decisions.
The Tribunal has ruled that the important question was whether the vehicles were owned by the firm or not, that although the name was incorrectly spelt the licence number was still sufficient identification and that the Authority had not erred in principle or "transgressed the bounds of reasonableness".