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 
Appeal for return of vehicles fails
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Transport Tribunal has rejected an operator's assertion that impounded vehicles
were his. Mike Jewell reports.
CROYDON BUSIN I SSMAN William Blake, trading as WK Light Commercials, has lost his appeal against the refusal of the South-Eastern and Metropolitan TC Christopher Heaps to return two impounded vehicles.
The vehicles, loaded with scaffolding, had been stopped on 7 September 2006.1he drivers had said they were employed byAce Scaffolding Services, whose licence had been revoked in May that year.'The firm had been the registered keeper of the vehicles when they were stopped.
The two vehicles had previously been impounded, hut had been returned to Ace pending an appeal to the Transport Tribunal. However, he had not granted a stay to allow the vehicles to operate until the appeal was heard — so although the TC had returned the vehicles, both were being operated illegally on the day they were stopped.
Coincidentally, the appeal had been withdrawn on 7 September.
Blake had indicated before the inquiry last year that he wished the TC to determine the matter in his absence (CM 30 November 2006). In his application for the return of the vehicles, Blake had said that he had bought them from Ace on 30 August, together with a quantity of scaffolding for use on a property of his. On 7 September the vehicles were being delivered to his premises. However, when Blake had a telephone conversation with Vosa that day, he had been unable to confirm the registration numbers of the vehicles. He had denied any connection with Ace but Vosa had learned he was the father-in-law of Ace's sole director, Graham Shean.
Only copies of invoices had been produced by Blake, said Heaps. Blake had made it clear that he had no business use for the vehicles or scaffolding and Heaps could see no reason for him to purchase these.
Blake had admitted in an interview that he was aware of the 0-licensing system, having held a licence 20 years ago.
When interviewed he had given conflicting answers as to who had been operating the vehicles when they were impounded.
Before the Transport Tribunal, Blake argued that the TC had not been given the true facts. Dismissing the appeal,the Tribunal said that by inviting the TC to deal with the matter on paper Blake had deprived himself of the opportunity to -give the TC the true facts".
'Ihere was evidence to justify the conclusions reached by the TC and there was nothing to persuade it that those conclusions were wrong. •