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 
Brothers who ran 'front' for their father win cut in ban
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Firm displayed the same shortcomings as disqualified fathers operatic TWO BROTHERS who ran a 'front' operation for their disqualified father have had their own disqualification period cut from five years to two on appeal, but the decision to revoke their company's 0-licence has been upheld.
Eastern Traffic Commissioner Geoffrey Simms had disqualified Gregory and Nigel Vince from holding or obtaining an 0-licence in any Traffic Area for five years (CM 14 September). He had decided that the brothers' companyVIT. was "a creature" of their father. Kevin Vince. The TC disqualified the company. which held a licence for four vehicles and four trailers, indefinitely from holding or obtaining an 0-licence.
The licence held by Kevin Vince. trading as Vince Transport Services, had been revoked in December 2003 and Vince had been disqualified indefinitely.
VIT had been called before the TC because of concern over its maintenance record and the fact that DVLA records showed Kevin Vince was the registered keeper of two of the vehicles specified on its licence. A traffic examiner had reported that one of the company's vehicles had been driven by Kevin Vince when it did not have a valid test certificate.
Making the revocation and disqualification orders, the TC described Kevin Vince as -a dreadfully bad operator".
Vii 's licence had been granted on the understanding that its activities would be quite independent of him, but from a relatively early stage it had showed the same shortcomings demonstrated by Kevin Vince. It failed to test its vehicles at the appropriate time and ran them in an unroadworthy condition. Cherished registration marks attached to the vehicles had been bought by Kevin Vince. VIT's customer. Davies Turner, was the company Kevin Vince had traded with.
Operator was a cowboy
The TC had said Kevin Vince appeared to be a "quite unscrupulous" individual — a "cowboy" operator, who was prepared to risk the consequences for his own sons in his reckless determination to operate goods vehicles. Gregory and Nigel Vince had been extremely foolish but they might have been persuaded they owed a family duty to provide the means to continue the existing business.
TheTransport Tri hun al said the re was nothing to support the contention that the company, with its own directors and shareholders, was entirely separate from Kevin Vince, as money was held in his account.The question was. who was the paymaster? Was Kevin Vince in reality a shadow director running the company, or was he in effect managing it?
Cutting the brothers' period of disqualification, the Tribunal said they were accessories after the fact to an unsatisfactory course of conduct. However, it considered that a five-year disqualification was too long, especially if the TC thought that, despite having been extremely foolish.the brothers might have been pressurised and might still be capable of running their own haulage business properly. •