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 
Father and son confusion over licence application
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN 0-LICENCE application hearing was adjourned after confusion arose over who had held th.e previous licence in a father-and-son operation where both men had the same names. It also transpired that the call-up Letter had been sent to the wrong address.
James R Brandrett of Manchester was seeking a new two-vehicle restricted licence before the NorthWestern Traffic Commissioner Beverley Bell. He said he had let his original 14-vehicle licence expire as he had sold his transport business in 2002 which had involved working as a subcontractor for P&C) Containers. He maintained that a licence revoked at a public inquiry had been held by his son, James S Brandrett. He agreed that he was a CPC holder.
James S Branclrett denied his licence was revoked and said his three-vehicle licence expired in 2002. He admitted that he had had a vehicle impounded.
After studying the licence application form, the TC requested the two men to provide specimens of their signatures. James R Brandrett agreed that it was his date of birth on the application form and that the address was his son's address. He said he did not think the signature on the form was his hut the TC said she thought it was.
Brand rett said he had been driving his son's vehicle when it was impounded. He had been under the impression that an 0-licence was not needed if they were carrying their own goods.
"You can't tell me that as a CPC holder," said the TC. She added that it seemed the licence was interchangeable.
Adjourning the hearing until early this month after the Brandretts said they had not seen the call-up letter because it was sent to the wrong address, the TC said it was all "very odd". More questions had been raised than answered.