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 
Application by absent haulier is rejected
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Deputy Traffic Commissioner suspects the operation is a front for disqualified haulier Katharine Oliver.
AN INTERNATIONAL haulier has been denied a new 0-licence because of suspected links to two disgraced operators, suspicions of a phoenix application on behalf of disqualified haulier Katharine Oliver, and apparent forgery Nigel Springer of Carlisle was seeking a new one-vehicle international licence but failed to appear at the Leeds public inquiry where North-Western Deputy Traffic Commissioner Tom Macartney rejected his application.
The DTC said he had familiarised himself with previous public inquiries involving Katharine Oliver, the wife of Stuart Oliver, who had a history with SW Swan & Partners and other entities (`Katharine Oliver disqualified for three and a half years'. CM 22 January). They had attracted a high profile within the industry.
The serious issues in the case had been put to Springer, but there had been no response. In particular were apparent links to William Martin Oliver & Partners and JW Swan & Partners. The vehicle to be specified had been registered to William Martin Oliver on 12 February 2008, having previously been registered to JW Swan. The DTC was also aware of discrepancies in the forms submitted with the application in that the signatures did not match. He was concerned about forgery and Springer had been asked to provide specimens of handwriting, so they could be corn pared with the signatures already on record.
Macartney knew that at a previous public inquiry Katharine Oliver had admitted to TC Beverley Bell that she had completed Springer's licence application form. He believed it was possible it was a "phoenix application" for Katharine Oliver, who had been disqualified from holding an 0-licence for 31/2 years, to enable the continuation of business undertaken by her and members of her family.
However, without being able to put his concerns to Springer, he did not know whether this was a phoenix application or not.
Springer had previously held a licence in Scotland, but had allowed that to lapse. He was his own transport manager and clearly had knowledge of the 0-licensing system. Holding that Springer had lost his repute, both as an operator and a transport manager, the DTC said it would appear that he had attempted to obtain a licence by forgery. In addition, he had failed to supply requested financial information. The obligation was on Springer to convince and satisfy him that his application should be granted and he could not allay his concerns in his absence.
He directed that his decision be drawn to the attention of every other TC in the country so that any future application by Springer for an 0-licence, or to act as a transport manager, would be considered at a public inquiry.