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 
Tribunal: 'Close it down'
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Transport Tribunal agrees with TC on revocation. Mike Jewell reports THE TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL has upheld the revocation of the 0-licence held by Sheerness-based North Kent Recycling, and the disqualification of the company and its director Reginald Rumbol from holding an 0-licence for six months.
South Eastern & Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner Christopher Heaps acted after hearing that an analysis of the company's tachograph records showed occasions when speed limiters were not working, mileage was missing and the hours limits were being exceeded.
The TC was also told there was no driver defect reporting system; two operating centres were being used without authorisation; and defects listed on a prohibition notice indicated sub-standard maintenance.
Misleading
R um bol explained that for 99% of the time vehicles had been working on the M2 motorway. They were left on site and were not on a public road. He accepted that many of the Centrefield entries were false;drivers had made entries as if they were leaving the yard at Queensborough in the morning and returning there at night.
Ralph Cropper, appearing for the company. told the Tribunal that the TC had taken account of "off-road/on-site" operations, where the rules governing tachographs, speed limits and speed limiters did not apply. lie argued that falsification of a document that was not required by law was of no significance.
Disagreeing, the Tribunal said falsifications made it impossible to tell from tachograph charts alone when the vehicle in question returned to the operating centre and when it remained in the compound on site. The TC rightly had attached significance to falsifications in relation to all the charts.
Valid issues
They were satisfied that the TC's decision was founded on matters which remained valid even if for much of the time the vehicles were operating off road.
There was no dispute that the company operated from two unauthorised operating centres and there was no dispute about the absence of driver defect reports.
Speed limiters were required because the vehicles used roads other than a coned-off section of the M2 from time to time. Tachograph charts showed that the speed limiters were defective and that the firm had done nothing effective about it.
The Tribunal felt that there was ample foundation for the conclusions the TC had reached -the argument about "off road" use was largely a diversion from the real issues. Both the case's details and the overall pict demonstrated very clearly that Rumbol,botl a director of the company and as its nomina transport manager, had a cavalier attitude the operator licensing system.
Where, as here, evidence showed that an erator could not be trusted to comply with • licensing system, it was proper to conclude t; it ought to be put out of business. •