AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Faircharrn and Red Lion lose appeal

26th June 2003, Page 6
26th June 2003
Page 6
Page 6, 26th June 2003 — Faircharrn and Red Lion lose appeal
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?

r by Mike Jewell

Two associated Yorkshire companies run by a father and son have lost their appeal against the revocation of their Operator's Licences and their disqualification from holding a licence for six months.

Faircharm of Horbury, and Red Lion Transport of Lepton, run by Graham and Kevin Ward respectively, were called before the North Eastern Deputy Traffic Commissioner Mark Hinchliffe at a Huddersfield Public Inquiry 1CM 16-22 Jan).

In making the revocation and disqualification orders, the OTC said Kevin Ward had been a director of several other haulage firms that ran into difficulties: two had gone into liquidation. Companies House revealed Kevin was a director of Euro Yorkshire from January to November 1999. However. Kevin said he had resigned as of 4 February 1999. To support this, he submitted a copy of a form notifying his resignation, although there was no Indication that this form had ever been sent to, or received by, Companies House.

The DIG did not believe that Kevin had ever handed over the reins and even though that company went into liquidation. It appeared to have continued to operate.

Graham Ward had also been a director of at least one firm which had fallen foul of the authorities over maintenance and unauthorised use.

Summerhose was the parent company of Red Lion Transport and it had applied for a licence. This was refused on the grounds that Graham, as sole director, was not of good repute. Despite this, Graham became director of Red Lion Transport a few months later.

Neither Graham nor the company notified the Traffic Area Office of his involvement. Graham later became the sole director of Faircharm (CM23-29 Jan).

Dismissing the appeals, the Tribunal said that the company's inadequate evidence was more than ample for a finding of loss of repute. Their own reading of the documents disclosed so much deceit right up to the PI, at which it was clear that further Iles were being piled upon earlier deception. It was obvious that much more than two years' trouble-free running must be required to enable repute to be restored.