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 
Tribunal rejects revocation appeal as inspections were not arranged
Page 14
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Durham haulier who consistently failed to have his vehicles examined by the Vehicle inspectorate has lost his appeal to the Transport Tribunal against ' the revocation of his Operator's Licence.
John Troup held an international licence for two vehicles and two trailers based at Bowburn Motorway Services.
The Tribunal said the Traffic Commissioner had been told that attempts by the Vehide Inspectorate to contact Troup and inspect his vehicles since July 2000 had consistently failed. The manager of the Bowburn Motorway Services Area had indicated that he had not authorised its use as an operating centre.
The Traffic Area Office wrote to Troup warning him of the possible revocation of his licence and Troup's father, who was his transport manager; replied in abusive terms. The TO decided to write another letter, warning that revocation might be ordered if a new operating centre was not applied for or if a maintenance investigation was not arranged. Troup was invfted to request a public inquiry A reply was received from Troup's father, again in abusive terms.
Transport Tribunal:
On 6 August 2001 another letter was sent by the TO, reiterating the points raised and stressing the need for a vehicle inspection—but that letter was sent to the wrong address.
Before the Tribunal, Troup complained about this and said that the manager of the Bowburn MSA had told him that he did have permission to use it as an operating centre.
Dismissing Troup's appeal, the Tribunal said t was unfortunate that the final letter had been sent to the wrong address. However, Troup had been given repeated opportunities to make an appointment with the VI and had persistently failed to do so. When he received notification of the revocation he should immediatqr have informed the Traffic Area that he had not received the letter of 6 August and made arrangements for a vehicle inspection. That he cltd not was consistent with his conduct throughout. There was no excuse for his failure to arrange an inspection over so long a period. Troup's statement that he had permission to use the Motorway Service Area was inconsistent with the evidence.
arrange an inspection