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 
Ban for failing to answer letters upheld
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL has upheld a decision to revoke the licence of a London ownerdriver who repeatedly ignored requests for information from the Traffic Area Office.
South Eastern & Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner Christopher Heaps had revoked South Norwoodbased Anthony Medford's licence after he failed to answer letters from the TAO over several months.
The tribunal heard that in October and November 2003 the TAO had written asking for an explanation of a poor maintenance report from VOSA. It received no reply. Medford also failed to respond to a letter in February saying that the TC was considering taking action against his licence.
Medford said the adverse VOSA report was not critical of the maintenance of his vehicle. Instead, he claimed, there had been a number of deficiencies in his record keeping which he had addressed to VOSA's satisfaction by December. He had not responded to the October and November letters because of personal difficulties and in February he went abroad Christopher Heaps on holiday until South Eastern & Metropolitan IC March.
The Tribunal said that by not responding to the letters in October and November Medford had been in breach of his obligations under the licensing system. The fact he had been on holiday at the time of the third and final letter was irrelevant as he should have responded before that stage.