AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

0-licence for company given wrong advice

16th July 2009, Page 23
16th July 2009
Page 23
Page 23, 16th July 2009 — 0-licence for company given wrong advice
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?

AN OPERATOR WHOSE solicitor gave him advice that encouraged an illegal operation has won an 0-licence at the second attempt — subject to several undertakings.

South Wales-based Castleton Turf & Soil Suppliers was granted a licence for five vehicles and one trailer by the Welsh Traffic Commissioner Nick Jones. A previous licence held by the company was revoked and Mark Cutter, its sole director, was disqualified from holding an 0-licence for three years. Subsequently, a vehicle operated by him was impounded.

The TC also refused an application for a licence by the company while at the same time revoking the licence held by John Ballinger,

which Cutter had been using (CM 29 January).

Mark Cutter said that following the revocation, he had proposed hiring vehicles from Ballinger. His former solicitor did not see any tlaw in what he was trying to do and Cutter relied on that legal advice.

He gave undertakings about his vehicle maintenance arrangements and that tachograph records would be independently analysed.

The TC said that the legal advice given had been raised with Cutter's former solicitor, but his reply was unclear. He accepted that although Cutter had a chequered history, he was telling the truth when he said that his solicitor in 2005 advised his ideas for circumventing a revocation and personal disqualification were lawful.

The advice given was wrong, but he did not want to punish someone who, in good faith, sought out legal advice and acted upon it. Merely because an individual has had a problematic history did not mean that he should never be trusted.

The TC said he would be referring his decision to the Solicitors' Regulatory Authority.


comments powered by Disqus