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
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200 
Tribunal dismisses owner-driver's appeal
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE TRANSPORT Tribunal has upheld a decision to revoke the one-vehicle licence of an operator who ignored repeated requests for information from the Traffic Area Office.
The licence held by Samuel Lean,trading as Budget Skip Hire, of Small Dole, West Sussex, was originally revoked by the South Eastern & Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner Christopher Heaps at the end of 2004.
The Tribunal said that in July 2004 a vehicle in Lean's livery was seen by a traffic examiner displaying an 0-licence disc in his name, but no excise licence. The driver, Nelson Ray, said he had purchased the vehicle from Lean and was using it privately. Four days later a different vehicle was seen returning a skip to Small Dole and was given an immediate prohibition for a damaged tyre. When Lean was visited by a vehicle examiner only one inspection sheet and one defect report could be produced.
In August and September the TAO wrote to Lean at Shooting Field, Steyning. without receiving any reply. On 29 September a vehicle in Lean's livery, not displaying a valid excise licence, was followed into Small Dole. The vehicle, driven by Lean, was given a prohibition for a defective tachograph.
Lean told the traffic examiner he could be con tacted at Pound Lane, Upper Beeding, and the correspondence address was still Shooting Field.
In October and November the TAO wrote to the Pound Lane address, setting out the history and requesting financial information. The letters warned revocation might be ordered. No reply was received and the TC revoked the licence.
On appeal,it was said Lean parted from his wife and the Shooting Field address was the matrimonial home. The Traffic Area was notified of a change of address in August. Lean did not deny that in September he told the TAO he could be contacted at Pound Lane.
Dismissing the appeal the Tribunal said the TAO and the TC had acted reasonably throughout.