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
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186 
Tribunal decides Hayden had a fair hearing before TC Bell
Page 10
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Transconsult boss has lost his appeal against a TC's decision — the
Transport Tribunal called his conduct "appalling". Mike Jewell reports.
ANOTHER MAJOR BLOW has been delivered to controversial transport consultant Alec Hayden, this time by the TransportTribunal, which has dismissed his appeal against a decision that he was no longer acceptable to appear as a representative of operators.
The Tribunal also branded Hayden's conduct in requiring operators to sign blank forms, to be completed later, as"appalling", saying that if he had been legally qualified it would have expected him to have been disciplined.
Last April NorthWestemTraffic Commissioner Beverley Bell concluded that Hayden had misled three operators in her region after he supplied them with a transport manager, David Peacock. through his firm Transconsult.
Peacock worked full time for the Royal Mail and Bell decided he was doing insufficient work for the operators; she was satisfied the three operators were unaware that their 0-licences were in jeopardy.
Bell described Hayden's word as "meaningless-. She said he was "not to be trusted" and his sole intention was self-promotion rather than promoting his clients' interests (CM 20 April 2006).
Hayden insisted that Peacock did have enough time to carry out his duties, but said he wouldn't expect him to do the eight hours per week for each operator that is required in the licence application forms. He suggested that this figure was purely to satisfy the its and did not mean Peacock must work to that extent.
Hayden claimed that he had been singled out unfairly by Bell and said her decision was contrary to his human rights. He also claimed that the TC was not a properly constituted tribunal since she was not subject to the Council of Tribunals, and that she was not independent or impartial because of her relationship with Vosa.
The Transport Tribunal rejected these arguments and said there had to be a direct contractual relationship between the operator and the transport manager.
It was appalled by Hayden's conduct in requiring an operator to sign blank forms. It also took a serious view of him completing forms with details he knew to be untrue. It described a letter he sent to the Traffic Area Office, in which he explained how Peacock would supposedly fulfil his role as transport manager,as a -sham", with an expectation of work included in it that he knew to be false.
The Tribunal said it was satisfied that Hayden had received a fair hearing before the TC, and that there was abundant evidence to support Bell's findings.
However, the Tribunal said that nothing in its decision should be taken as a general criticism of transport consultants who gave assistance to operators.
Its comments related solely to Hayden's conduct.
It thought that the overall position was well demonstrated after Hayden was asked if he wanted to comment on the alleged conflict of interest with the operators. He replied:"I wouldn't know because I'm not a lawyer."