AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

P LEGAL BRIEFS Fee appeal lost 1-)1-TERBOROUGH-BASED John Popple, trading

17th December 2009
Page 23
Page 23, 17th December 2009 — P LEGAL BRIEFS Fee appeal lost 1-)1-TERBOROUGH-BASED John Popple, trading
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?

as J&S Popple, has lost his appeal against the refusal of the late acceptance of the annual renewal fee for his twovehicle 0-licence.

He was appealing against the decision of Eastern Traffic Commissioner Richard Turfitt that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify late acceptance of the fee.

Popple was reminded by letter that the £20 fee was due by the end of May, and that a failure to pay by the due date would lead to the automatic termination of his 0-licence.

After being told in June that the licence had terminated, Popple wrote to say he had not received the reminder. He also said he would

not have put his licence in jeopardy for the sake of the non-payment of E20.

Before the tribunal, Popple said he had always paid on time and he had always previously had reminders The tribunal said the Traffic Area Office was under no statutory obligation to send reminders, and there had to be truly exceptional circumstances before an automatic termination of an 0-licence could be overturned.

Fined for limiter fiddling

INTERFERING WITH A recovery vehicle's speed limiter has cost a Swansea company and one of its directors £1,256 in fines and costs.

MR Fussell, trading as Millbrook Recovery, and director Richard Fussell, who was driving the vehicle, pleaded guilty to the offence before Newcastle and Ogmore Magistrates.

The court was told that a VOSA vehicle was travelling along the M4 at Llantrisant when it was overtaken by a recovery vehicle at a speed estimated as 85mph. The vehicle left the motorway and was stopped at Bridgend.

An examination of the vehicle revealed thai the speed limiter had been disconnected. 11 was the opinion of a senior vehicle examine' that the limiter had been disconnected foi some time. and that the driver must have beer aware of it.

The company was fined £650 and orderec to pay £283 prosecution costs. Fussell wa! fined £140 and ordered to pay £.183 ir prosecution costs.


comments powered by Disqus