AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Licence refused but still operating

14th October 2004
Page 6
Page 6, 14th October 2004 — Licence refused but still operating
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

TC refuses 0-licence application but the Transport Tribunal grants a stay of execution. The CM news team reports.

IT'S BEEN A MIXED week fora Northumbrian haulage dynasty after decisions by the Transport Tribunal and the North Western Traffic Commissioner. Things initially looked grim for the Oliver family as Revilo Logistics, the firm formed to take over the business of banned Northumbrian haulier William Martin Oliver & Partners,wasrefused an 0-licence.

However, as CM went to press, the Transport Tribunal confirmed that it had granted the partnership a stay of execution. The Oliver licences had previously been revoked with effect from the end of October and the firm's three partners, William Martin, Marion and Stuart Oliver, had been disqualified indefinitely from holding or obtaining an 0-licence in any Traffic Area following widespread tachograph abuse among the firm's drivers.

The partners are awaiting a retrial at Newcastle upon Tyne Crown Court in January on charges of conspiracy.

Refusing the Revilo applications, TC Beverley Bell said she could not be sure the firm was of good repute or had appropriate financial standing.

Revilo, of Bardon Mill,Hexham, Northumberland. had sought an international licence for 59 vehicles and 112 trailers in the North EastemTrafficArea and one for eight vehicles and 75 trailers in the North Western Traffic Area.

Katherine Oliver,one of the two directors and sole shareholder of Revilo, is the wife of Stuart Oliver, a partner in the former firm; the other director is Lea Riggs.

Katharine Oliver had maintained that she would be "a new broom, sweeping completely clean" (CM 23 September).

In her decision, the TC said she was not satisfied that the company could comply with the requirement to be of good repute or that it possessed the appropriate financial standing.

Neither was she satisfied about the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the hours and tachograph rules or for maintaining the vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition.


comments powered by Disqus