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 
False documents make operator's licence invalid
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The TC rules that an 0-licence was obtained by deception — it is
revoked and the operator is disqualified. Michael Jewell reports.
THE INTERNATIONAL licence for five vehicles and live trailers held by Iver, Bucksbased Diane Healey has been revoked by EasternTraffie Commissioner Geoffrey Simms. Healey was also disqualified indefinitely from holding or obtaining an 0-licence.
Making the revocation and disqualification orders, the TC said this was one of a series of serious cases involving false documents and false information.The application form signed by Healey nominated Mark Blair as transport manager and Paddy's Autos of Neasden Lane, London, as the maintenance contractor.
A large-scale investigation by Vosa officers into false applications for 0-licences led them to Healey through her use of Paddy's Autos. It had been used by operators whose licences had been revoked. Suspicions about Blair's credentials were confirmed by the certifying body, which was unable to trace him in their records.
Healey claimed the application form was completed by Pat Kelly in company with John Plum. She was unable to contact them, Paddy's Autos or Blair: as a result her maintenance was handled by her brothers and she had taken on Maureen Hodgkins as transport manager.
Healey had said she was introduced to Kelly and Plum by word of mouth. She had not seen either of them since she signed the application form and she had not paid them. She had said that she had never met Blair. She had not owned any vehicles at the time of the application and she accepted that she had brought nothing of substance bar her name and address to the application. She suggested that she might have been the victim of a trick.
The TC posed some questions: What sort of trick was it? What reward was there for Kelly and Plum for the considerable risk they had taken in forging the CPC? Somebody had obtained a licence, which had been used, for nothing. If Healey was telling the truth somebody other than her had rewarded them for their services. If it was not Healey, it was probably a person or persons who themselves might have difficulty obtaining a licence using their own identity.
There was nothing to have prevented Healey asking Hodgkins to act as her transport manager and her brothers to carry out the safety inspections had she really wanted a licence for her own use. What need had she of Kelly, Plum and Blair if she was telling the truth? She either knew that the information was false or she did not want to know.
Since Blair was a fiction, the licence was obtained by deception. Conduct of that nature threatened the integrity of the licensing system. •