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 
Traffic Commissioner rejeds false claims of ownership
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
An operator who asked for the return of impounded trucks was not
able to confirm their registration numbers. Mike Jewell reports.
A CROYDON BUSINESSMAN falsely claimed ownership of two impounded scaffolding vehicles which actually belonged to his son-in-law whose licence had been revoked.
William Blake. who trades as WK Light Commercials, had asked for the matter to be decided in his absence. At the inquiry, South Eastern and MetropolitanTraffic Comm issioner Christopher Heaps concluded Blake was not the owner.
Heaps heard that the two veh icles,loadecl with scaffolding, had been stopped on 7 September. The drivers had said they were employed by Ace Scaffolding Services.That company, whose licence had been revoked in May, had been the registered keeper of the vehicles when they were stopped.
They had previously been impounded but had been returned to Ace pending an appeal to the Transport Tribunal. However the Tribunal had not granted a stay to allow the vehicles to operate until the appeal was heard —so although the TC had returned the vehicles, both were operating illegally on the day they were stopped. Coincidentally, the appeal was withdrawn on the same day.
In his application for the return of the vehicles Blake had said he bought them from Ace on 30 August together with scaffolding material for repairs to a property of his. He had claimed that on 7 September the vehicles were being delivered to his premises. However, when Blake spoke to Vosa that day he had been unable to confirm the registration numbers of the vehicles which he claimed to have bought on 30 August.
He had also claimed he had no connection with Ace,yet Vosa had learned he was the fatherin-law of Ace's sole director, Graham Shean.
Blake had only produced copies of invoices for the vehicle purchase. When interviewed he admitted he had no business use for vehicles or the scaffolding. He was aware of 0-licensing system, having held a licence ab 20 years ago, but gave conflicting answers a who the operator of the vehicles was when ti were impounded.
TheTC gave little weight to Blake's stateme Several factors suggested the vehicles were bc used by Ace on the day in question, including: drivers' st a tements;fuel cards in the name of and fuel receipts linked to the cards issued a Blake claimed to have bought the vehicles, I