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
187
188
189
190 
Operating centre ad not misleading, rules Tribunal
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A DECISION to refuse a change of operating centre on the grounds that it was misleadingly advertised has been overturned by the Transport Tribunal. The Tribunal has instead ruled that the application must now be considered by a different Traffic Commissioner.
Colchester-based Anglian Removals had sought to transfer its operating centre to Unit 4, Gosbecks Farm. Gosbecks Road, Colchester. The original advertisement in a local newspaper was out of time and when the application was re-advertised the words "Unit 4were omitted from the address by mistake. As a result, the Eastern Deputy Traffic Commissioner Robert Lockwood refused the application.
Before the Tribunal, the company's manager Roy Ratcliffe said Gosbecks Farm was no longer a working farm and the outbuildings had been turned into industrial units. Opposite the farm was Gosbecks Industrial Estate.. He argued that nobody would have been misled or prejudiced by the second advertisement. The Tribunal said the DTC's decision was founded upon the assumption that the advertisement would allow the company to use an area larger than that denoted in the application. That was the wrong test. The test was whether the error in the address was such that it was likely to have caused prejudice to any person's interest. It would appear that no prejudice was likely to have been caused by the error, particularly when a properly worded advertisement had earlier been placed in the newspaper and had not given rise to any objections or representations.