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 
JC Innes loses five-year disqualification appeal
Page 10
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By Chris Tindat ABERDEEN-BASED JC Innes & Sons has lost its appeal against a five-year disqualification after the Transport Tribunal expressed surprise that its licence hadn't been revoked earlier.
James Innes had appealed against the decision made by the Scottish Deputy Traffic Commissioner,RichardMcFarlane, claiming that the DTC had taken into account matters that he shouldn't have, and that between the second and third public inquiries relating to drivers' hours and tachograph breaches, improvements had been made. For the firm, John McLaughlin said that if the DTC had conducted a proper balancing exercise, the company's licence for 18 vehicles and 25 trailers would have been curtailed, not revoked.
The DTC had also revoked the HGV licences of five of the company's drivers, banning four of them from holding a licence for 12 months and the fifth for five years.
At the firm's third public inquiry, in January, McFarlane concluded that Innes had "lost effective control" of the haulage operation, and that there was a culture of drivers creating false records.
The Tribunal described the case as serious, and that Innes' failure to give evidence to the DTC was "fatal" to his role as operator and transport manager.
Judge Jacqueline Beech concluded: "We are satisfied that the Deputy Traffic Commissioner's analysis of the evidence was correct, his balancing exercise could not be faulted, and the order of revocation was plainly right.
"Further, against the backdrop of the appellant's regulatory history, the disqualification period of five years was entirely proper."