AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Misunderstanding over licence swap

11th May 1995, Page 26
11th May 1995
Page 26
Page 26, 11th May 1995 — Misunderstanding over licence swap
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?

• Using another haulier's 0-licence identity disc has cost Huddersfield-based Peter Medlock 1225 in fines and costs. Mecllock, who trades as IVIPK Transport, of Smiths Avenue, March, Huddersfield pleaded guilty before the Crewe Magistrates to using a vehicle without an 0-licence. He was fined 1150 with 475 costs.

Frank Wilkinson, trading as Carfan Transport, of Bentley Street, Lockwood, Huddersfield was also fined £150, with 175 costs after admitting aiding and abetting Medlock.

Prosecuting for the DOT, Margaret Cluley said that a vehicle driven by Medlock had been stopped in a check at Sandbach while carrying resin from Middlewich to Felixstowe. The 0-licence disc displayed was in the name of Frank Wilkinson, trading as Carfan Transport.

Medlock produced a delivery note to the traffic examiner showing that MPK Transport was contracted to make the delivery; he admitted that he had been operating the vehicle since 1993 without an 0-licence.

Defending, Gary Hodgson said that Wilkinson held a licence for two vehicles. He operated one vehicle and bought another when he thought his son was to be made redundant. That fear proved groundless and he sold the vehicle to Medlock. He had thought that it would be all right for Medlock to use the licence disc until he had finished paying for the vehicle. Both men had misunderstood the legislation.


comments powered by Disqus