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
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202 
Leasing company's vehicle is held after it failed to check hirer's 0-licence
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A LEASING FIRM that failed to ensure a customer had an 0-licence has been refused the return of an impounded vehicle.
South-Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner Christopher Heaps said PCF Equipment Leasing had "put its head in the sand" by not requiring the hirer to complete details of his 0-licence in the leasing agreement. Also, it did not attend the public inquiry to argue for the return of its vehicle.
The vehicle had been stopped in a check in West London in June while carrying ornamental stone.The driver told the traffic examiner he was employed by Matthew Coles, of Bedford.When interviewed, Coles admitted that neither he nor his father, Martin Coles, who was his partner, held an 0-licence.
The TC rejected an application by Matthew Coles for the return of the vehicle.A subsequent application for its return was made by PCF as the owner, on the grounds it was unaware the vehicle was being used without an 0-licence.
The TC said the vehicle had been hired to Martin Coles. He was asked to complete the agreement, providing 0-licensing details including the name of the licence holder, the licence number and its expiry date. However, he did not answer that question.
Refusing to return the vehicle, the TC said PCF knew the vehicle could not he legally operated without an 0-licence. There was such a high degree of fault that he had to conclude the company -knew' Martin Coles did not hold an 0-licence.