A One loses 0-licence
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• North Eastern LA Frederick Whalley has revoked A One Transport (Leeds)'s 0-1.cence because of drivers' hours and overloading convictions and licensing irregularities. But Whalley has indicated that if the company seeks a fresh licence, he will grant interim authority to enable the business to continue.
A One held a licence for 110 vehicles and 200 trailers expiring in May. It had applied to add 115 vehicles and 110 trailers folowing the surrender of licences held by its subsidiaries, DLS Europe, Henry Long Transport and Cliff Parrott.
Evidence was given of hours offences committed by 17 drivers belonging to DLS in September 1989 (CM 21-27 September 1989), following an investigation resulting from allegations made at a public inquiry by former A One driver John Taylor (CM 25 January-1 February 1989). The LA was told that A One had been acquired by Johnson of Hendon Holdings in 1987.
Whalley felt that the fact that all the group's drivers were employed by A One made operations under the DLS, Henry Long and Parrott licences of doubtful legality. He also criticised the fact that Continental drivers were allowed to plan their own itinery, being given a generous time allowance in which to complete their journeys, saying that journey planning was the function of management.
For A One, Stephen Kirkbright said the overloading record was not a bad one and was improving. A total of 37 instances of overloading over five years was the equivalent of an owner-driver having one every 25 years. There was no long enforcement history and there were not drivers' hours or tachograph convictions recorded against the company.
The moment the drivers' offences were brought to light, the new managment took steps to rectify the situation, headded. A One now had a comprehensive driver training and tachograph checking system.
The employment of all the drivers by A One was simply an administrative convenience and not an attempt to get round the law, Kirkbright told the LA. DLS gave the drivers their instructions and had the right to hire and fire, so it was not conceded that the drivers were not DLS's "employees". If the law had been breached in that respect, it was so technical that it did not warrant any action.
Whalley did not agree that it was only a technical breach. He concluded that A One had been operating vehicles belonging to its subsidiaries without authority, as it was paying the drivers, who were thus part of the A One workforce and that company's servants or agents. A company of the size of A One ought to have realised that to operate vehicles in that way was illegal, said Whalley.
He had been impressed by the attitude of the company's chairman and managing director, Neil McGee, and he had no real fears for the future. However, the formal statements of intention had not been made by the present owner and he felt that the company ought to make a fresh application for a licence.
Revoking the existing licence from midnight the following day, Whalley refused to grant a stay of his decision pending an appeal to the Transport Tribunal. He warned that there was no guarantee that a fresh application would be granted in the terms applied for — there could well be a reduction in the number of vehicles.