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 
Operator ignored suspension
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Company will face licence revocation if it ignores new five-week suspension after failing to comply with original one-week ban.
A SOUTH COAST operator who ignored a week's licence suspension faces a further four-week suspension and has narrowly escaped full revocation. The company's director claimed to be unaware that the suspension had been ordered because he only dealt with "really important things".
St Leonards. East Sussex-based Coleman Construction & Utilities breached various environmental conditions and failed to comply with a week's suspension imposed at a public inquiry in December 2002 by South-Eastern & Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner Christopher Heaps.
The suspension of the company's threevehicle licence ran for the last week of February 2003. However, at a further public inquiry in May 2003 at Eastbourne a traffic examiner gave evidence the company had continued to operate vehicles during the suspension period.
Residents reported use A local resident listed occasions when vehicles operated outside the permitted hours during the same period, saying that in the two weeks prior to the public inquiry vehicles were seen to leave before 7am every morning, including the day of the public inquiry. That hearing was adjourned until September 2003 for the production of two months' tachograph charts.
When the hearing resumed two residents gave further examples of operation outside the permitted hours.
Director Barry Coleman claimed he had not seen the written notice of licence suspension. though he remembered his transport consult ant Doug Sturman had told him of a ban. He said he did not deal with paperwork except for "really important things-. He "received so many phone calls a day". He had given "little attention to the suspension because of pressure of work".
Firm misunderstood conditions Coleman thought the environmental conditions might have been agreed by his clerk during conversations with Sturman. He would not knowingly breach the conditions as he knew the residents would report any breaches. He was unable to explain the vehicle movements outside the permitted hours.
Sturman argued that the conditions had not been fully understood by the company.
Suspending the licence for five weeks — four weeks plus the original week's suspension — the IC said he was satisfied the company had been aware of the suspension period. An operator's failure to comply with a TC's decision goes to the very heart of the licensing system and can lead to licence revocation on the grounds of loss of repute or fitness to hold a licence.
Heaps had determined— just — that the company's conduct was not so serious as to require the revocation of the licence. But he warned that any use of the company's vehicles during the further suspension period, or any further breaches of the environmental conditions, would probably lead to licence revocation. •