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 
P CASE ONE
Page 23
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Licence applicant withheld information
A RECOVERY operator who deliberately withheld information that showed he was disqualified from holding an 0-licence has had his application for a new licence turned down.
Thomas Malcolm, director of Glenrothes-based Premier Recovery Services, had failed to declare that he had had a previous licence revoked and had been disqualified from holding an 0-licence for 10 years when he applied for a licence authorising the operation of four vehicles and six trailers. The application was heard by Scottish Deputy Traffic Commissioner Tom Macbirtney.
In June 2000, the then Traffic Commissioner Michael Betts revoked the licence of Taphaul, a company of which Malcolm was a director, following drivers' hours and tachograph offences, including the falsification of tachograph records, and disqualified him for 10 years.
Malcolm said Premier had four heavy vehicles and an arhc engaged on recovery work. The vehicles were currently exempt from 0-licensing, as they were recovery vehicles. He wanted a licence so that the vehicles could carry return loads for hire or reward.
The licence application form had contained errors because he had misread the notes on the application form concerning convictions and he had ticked the wrong box about having a previous licence revoked. There was no intention to mislead.
The DTC concluded that disqualification from the industry after three public inquiries could not have slipped Makolm's mind.
If the then Senior TC found Malcolm to be involved in the worst example of its kind, meriting a 10-year disqualification from the goods vehicle industry, then it would take very strong arguments to persuade him to reduce the period.
Malcolm had claimed that he wished to have his disqualification lifted early but he had chosen to falsify his application and deny that he had ever been disqualified.
Lacidn in repute
The Deputy TC found that in the circumstances Malcolm lacked the necessary good repute to be the holder of a goods vehicle 0-licence.