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 
Warning for operator whose VED cheque bounced twice
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A SHROPSHIRE operator whose vehicle excise duty cheques bounced twice has escaped with a warning despite the company's failure to turn up to a disciplinary inquiry.
West Midlands Traffic Commissioner David Dixon initially proposed to revoke Rob Hughes Transport's 0-licence and to disqualify the firm and MD Robert Hughes from holding an 0-licence for 12 months.The Telford-based operator held a licence for five vehicles. But when called before the TC at a Birmingham disciplinary inquiry he failed to put in an appearance.
At a later, private, hearing with the company the TC decided to settle for a formal warning when Robert Hughes cited his children's medical problems as the reason the VED had not been paid. However, the TC made it clear he would not accept this excuse again.
The company had first appeared before him in June 2002 after it was convicted of failing to return void excise licence discs after its cheque bounced. Michelle Howell, a DVLA prosecuting officer,
said that in April 2003 Hughes had applied for excise licences for three vehicles.His cheque for £2,337.50 was returned by the bank. Hughes was sent a notice requiring the return of the void discs but did not do so. He was convicted by the Telford magistrates in October.
In reply to the TC, Howell said that the vehicles were licensed again in October and had current excise licences. She confirmed that the company would have been operating the vehicles illegally without tax between May and September.
The TC said that Hughes had a history of not paying vehicle excise duty, deliberately or otherwise. He was warned on the last occasion that if he did it again he would lose his repute. It was quite wrong for hauliers not to pay to the state what was due, whatever the reason.
He allowed time for Hughes to make representations against the orders he proposed making, and following a meeting in chambers the TC decided to take no action other than to issue a formal warning. MITIGATING FACTOR
To hold on to his 0-licence Hughes must have been able to provide strong mitigation for the fact that the second cheque in payment of VED was not honoured by the bank.