AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Bryan wins back licence and overturns year ban

3rd July 2003, Page 7
3rd July 2003
Page 7
Page 7, 3rd July 2003 — Bryan wins back licence and overturns year ban
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?

• by Mike Jewel Okehampton-based Bryan Haulage has successfully appealed against the revocation of its licence and overturned a ban on its directors and the firm from holding a licence for 12 months.

In December 2001, the Western Traffic Commissioner Philip Brown revoked the company's Operators Licence for 45 vehicles and 50 trailers and disqualified the directors because of a series of drivers hours and tachograph offences committed by drivers of its vehicles (CM 13-19 December 2001). However, the Transport Tribunal quashed the revocation and disqualification orders and directed that the case be reconsidered by a different TC (CM11-17 July 2002).

In November of last year Tom Macartney, sitting as a Deputy Traffic Commissioner, again revoked the licence and disqualified the directors for 12 months. In doing so, he said that the continuing failure of the company to ensure that the drivers' hours and tachograph regulations were observed over a protracted period, despite a number of occasions when warning bells should have been ringing, was a serious lapse. The rigorous regime which had been put in place after December 2000 was commendable but too late (CM 28 Nov-4 Dec 2002.) Allowing the appeals second time round, the Tribunal said that following the Court of Appeal's judgment in the Crompton case (CM 27 Feb-5 Mar), the question that TCs had now to consider In cases such as this was "is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business?" On appeal the Tribunal must not only consider the details of the case but also the overall result.

In this case it took account of the improvements made by the company and it noted its otherwise good regulatory record. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the presumption was that the company had had no problems with tachograph charts since April 2001. Balancing all those matters against the consequences of the loss of the licence, the Tribunal had to conclude that it was not proportionate to order revocation.

The Tribunal had considered whether any form of sanction was appropriate for the admitted breaches to the 1997/98 period but had concluded that it was unnecessary. The company had had these matters hanging over it for a prolonged period with not all of that being of its own making. Moreover, it had expended substantial sums by way of costs. The Tribunal did not doubt that the minds of all those involved in the company's business were now focused on the need for compliance with all matters relating to drivers' hours and tachograph charts and that the company was well aware of the need to observe all the requirements of its 0-licence.


comments powered by Disqus