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 
No CPC, no licence
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
LINCOLNSHIRE removals contractor has lost his operator's ence because he does not possess a certificate of professional mpetence.
At a Transport Tribunal hearg in London last week, Richard tmmerton of Hykenham Reovals lost his appeal against a decision of the East Midland :lensing Authority.
Mr Hammerton told the TribuI that he had been in business Ice 1964, and had started his vn removals company in 1970, a was granted a two-year 0ence from December 31, 1977 r one vehicle and argued that qualification regulations me into force at a later date, did not need a CPC.
Accepting that statement, Tri
:nal president George Squibb id that a new licence, which is piv required, can only be anted to someone with a CPC. ie regulations clearly apply to Nv licence applications.
The Tribunal told Mr Hammern that his licence was probably anted before the new legis:ion came into force specifi cally to allow him time to qualify for a CPC before the licence expired.
Mr Hammerton said that he advertised for a transport manager with a CPC, but had a poor response. He said he did not sit the .exam as the course would take up to six months to complete.
He also thought that grandfather rights lasted indefinitely, but Mr Squibb pointed out that they exist in order to help operators get appropriate qualifications while still operating. Mr Hammerton said it was absurd that a person can run a removal business, but not run a vehicle. He was under the impression that he would automatically receive a CPC after his years of experience.
"How would you feel if someone said after 10 years that you were not competent?" asked Mr Hammerton. He suggested that his 0-licence should now be extended to enable him to gain a CPC.
Mr Squibb said that while the Tribunal understood his views, Mr Hammerton was no different from hundreds of others in a similar situation.