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 
Operator wins appeal due to TAO slip-up
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE FAILURE OF a Traffic Area Office (TAO) to send a second reminder has led to the Transport Tribunal's decision to overrule the termination of a licence because of late payment.
Buckingham-based Sew-It-All held a one-vehicle restricted licence. On 15 May 2006. the Eastern Traffic Area Office issued a written reminder that the annual fee of 44 was payable by 30 June. However, a second reminder, which was the normal practice,was not sent. The annual fee was not paid by 30 June and the licence automatically revoked. On 13 July, director Vartan Anderyassian told the TAO the firm had not received any reminder.and that he wanted to complain. He was advised to write to Geoffrey Simms, Eastern Traffic Commissioner, enclosing the fee and asking that the payment be given late consideration. The -cc ruled there were no exceptional circumstances, and refused late payment.
Before theTribunal.Anderyassian said the company had not received the first reminder. The firm did not use the vehicle during the summer months ancLas soon as it was realised that the licence fee had not been paid, the Traffic Area was contacted. While Anderyassian realised the company should not rely on reminders to pay its annual fees, in reality it did so. particularly as the business effectively closed in the summer.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the sending of only one reminder constituted exceptional circumstances for the late payment.