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 
Wife's licence application was a front for husband
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A WOMAN'S BID for an interim licence has been rejected after the TC ruled that her husband was the "driving force" behind the business.
Burnley-based Juanina Parr had applied for interim authority tocommence operation as Parplant UK with a new national licence for eight vehicles and three trailers. In January. the North-Western Traffic Commissioner Beverley Bell had revoked Parrs fivevehicle licence, trading as Parr Plant, the nominated transport manager of which was her husband David. That licence was currently still in force, pending the determination of an appeal to the Transport Tribunal.
The TC was told the company did not yet intend to pursue the application for a substantive licence. hut to seek interim authority to commence operation so it could show beyond all doubt that it could meet the required high standards. The company had new. purpose-built premises. David Parr, whose main income was the operation of heavy plant. would continue to work as a fitter, and he was booked on a three-day Vasa course.
Juanina Parr said she was the sole director and shareholder of Parplant. The intention was to "ring fence" the trucks away from the plant. Her husband would have no control over the running of the vehicles, hut she agreed that the previous business she had run had been a "sham-. She denied that the company was David Parr hiding behind her (CM 26 October).
Refusing interim authority, the TC said that, apart from the establishment of the limited company, there was nothing different from the situation in January, despite several months having elapsed.
The TC was satisfied that Juanina Parr was not actually in control of the business. The fact that she admitted fetching vehicle parts when David Parr told her to proved she was not the driving force within the business.