AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

to waste firm to have new hearing

3rd June 1999, Page 21
3rd June 1999
Page 21
Page 21, 3rd June 1999 — to waste firm to have new hearing
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?

Hughes Waste Management has won an appeal against the refusal of its bid for a fresh Operator's Licence—the Transport Tribunal has directed that the case should be reconsidered by a different Traffic Commissioner.

The company had chosen to pay its Western Traffic Area licence fees annually. The first annual payment, due at the end of September 1997, was not paid so its licence was automatically terminated.

It submitted an application for a fresh licence for 114 vehicles and 17 trailers in June of last year and was given interim authority to operate 82 vehicles. The company had continued to operate without licence authority in the intervening period. As a result it was convicted on three occasions of seven offences of unauthorised use.

As a result of this, Western TC Christopher Heaps refused the company's application for the new licence and revoked the interim authority, on the grounds that it failed to meet the requirement to be of good repute because of those convictions and because its transport manager had knowingly permitted vehicles to be operated when there was no 0-licence in force ( CM10-16 Dec 1998).

However, the Tribunal accepted arguments from Jim Duckworth, appearing for Hughes, that the TC had misdirected himself in considering that the company had lost its repute because it had been "repeatedly convicted" of offences, as that provision applied only to individuals, and that he had placed too much reliance on the Tribunal's decision in the Megatrade case.

The Tribunal agreed that the director of Megatrade had a poor track record and had been expressly warned about the consequences of continuing to operate. It said that, in Duckworth's words, the director concerned had been a rogue, whereas the same could not be said of the present company or its directors.

Ordering the licence application to be reheard, the Tribunal said it did not think that the full picture had come to light. The vehicles had been operated for a prolonged period without licence discs and the reaction of the dnvers to that situation had not been explored.

Moreover, it said, the evidence about the directors' first awareness of events had barely been tested.

Directing that the interim authority should be continued, the Tribunal said that this should not be regarded by the company as encouragement as to the likely outcome.

Tags

Organisations: Transport Tribunal

comments powered by Disqus