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 
Jones: 0 brother where art thou?
Page 16
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A North Wales operator, who blamed a conviction for unauthorised operation on his brother, has had his bid to have his impounded truck returned adjourned pending further enquires. Thomas Anthony Jones, of Moss. Wrexham, sought the return of the vehicle before the Welsh Traffic Commissioner David Dixon at a Chester Public Inquiry. For the Vehicle Inspectorate, David Rhys said that Jones' vehicle was stopped by police on 22 November while being driven by him and was taken to the Llay Test Station. It was found to be seriously defective and was issued with an immediate prohibition. Jones was also not the holder of an Operator's Licence.
For Jones, John Parsons said that he used the vehicle to pick up abandoned vehicles to take them to a scrap yard. lie had thought that, as he was only being paid for the scrap, he did not need an 0-licence. A previous conviction for unauthorised use In 1997 was an offence in fact committed by his brother, who had given Jones' name and address to the enforcement officer he said, Jones was convicted in his absence.
Jones said that he had not paid a penny of the fine imposed then and had not been prosecuted further for non-payment. lie did not know the current address of his younger brother (Frederick Jones).
lie now accepts that he did in fact fall within licensing regulations.
He claimed that since the impounding he had been unable to carry out any business and if he did not get his vehicle back he would have to sign on for unemployment benefit.
If it was returned, he would immediately apply for an 0-licence.
The VI said that in view of the previous conviction, Jones must have known that he needed an 0-licence. A check en the register of births had shown no trace of any brother. Records also showed that the fines and costs had been paid.
The TC allowed three weeks for further enquiries to be made, after which he will issue his decision in writing.