AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Disqualification for sons who had run operation as a front

14th September 2006
Page 33
Page 33, 14th September 2006 — Disqualification for sons who had run operation as a front
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?

Keywords : Business / Finance

TC found that this "extremely foolish" pair had made the same mistakes that cost their "cowboy" father his licence. Mike Jewell reports.

TWO BROTHERS have been disqualified from holding or obtaining an 0-licence in any Traffic Area for five years after running a firm that was found to be a front for their father,who had already been disqualified.

Eastern Traffic Commissioner Geoffrey Simms made the disqualification orders when revoking the licence held by Gregory and Nigel Vince's company VIT, which he ruled was "a creatureof their father Kevin Vince. The company, which held a licence for four vehicles and four trailers, was disqualified indefinitely from holding or obtaining an 0-licence.

In December 2003 the licence held by Kevin Vince. trading as Vince Transport Services, was revoked; Vince was disqualified indefinitely

Concern over maintenance

VIT was called before the IC because of concern over its maintenance record and the fact that DVLA records showed Kevin Vince as the registered keeper of two of the vehicles specified on the company's licence. A traffic examiner reported that one of the company's vehicles had been driven by Kevin Vince when it did not have a valid test certificate.

Vehicle examiner David Unsworth told the TC that a vehicle had been given a prohibition for defective Lyres on 24 January after an inspection record from Scania dated 5 December had noted that the tyres were in poor condition.

Nigel Vince said the vehicles were subject to agreements between finance houses and Kevin Vince, though his company paid the instalments. The business relied on his father's bank account because it had an overdraft filedity,They were unable to produce the company's hank statements as the accountant had not had time to prepare for the inquiry.

Making the revocation and disqualification orders, the TC said that Kevin Vince was a "dreadfully had operator-. He stressed that the company's licence had been granted on the understanding that its activities would be independent of Kevin Vince.

In their father's footsteps

From a relatively early stage the company had manifested the same shortcomings demonstrated by Kevin Vince. It failed to test its vehicles at the appropriate time and ran them in an unroad worthy condition. Cherished registration marks attached to the vehicles had been bought by Kevin Vince. The company's customer. DaviesTurner, was the company that Kevin Vince had also traded with.

Simms 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 in defiance of the statutory regulator's directions.

He concluded that Gregory and Nigel Vince had been "extremely foolish", hut it was likely that they might have been persuaded that they owed a filial duty to provide the means to continue the existing business. •


comments powered by Disqus