AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Ignorance doesn't pay

18th February 1988
Page 22
Page 22, 18th February 1988 — Ignorance doesn't pay
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?

• Ramsbottom-based Xercon Industries was ordered to pay fines and costs totalling 24,244.50 by the Bury magjstrates, who were told that the company had carried on operating as if nothing had happened following the revocation of its operator's licence.

The company had denied two offences of using a vehicle without an operator's licence and two offences of using an international and haulage permit with intent to deceive.

Christopher Worthy, prosecuting for the North Western Licensing Authority, said be • cause Xercon did not hold an 0-licence, it could not obtain any permits. To overcome that problem it had used permits issued in the name of David Taylor Engineering for journeys to Italy.

Suggestions that David Taylor Engineering had anything to do with the vehicle concerned were a complete fiction, he said.

Senior Traffic Examiner William Keddie said that when interviewed, managing director Vernon George had admitted that Xercon was the owner of the vehicle and paid the driver. The vehicle was on hire to David Taylor on a 30-day hire agreement. George had admit ted that he had arranged the loads and had given the driver his instructions.

The vehicle was not on the licence held by David Taylor Engineering, said Keddie.

George said that Xercon had had a lot of trouble obtaining permits over the years.

The company's licence was revoked in June 1986 because of various offences — that left it having a responsibility to customers and unable to import their goods under the necessary strict control.

The hiring arrangement with David Taylor Engineering had been a temporary measure while arrangements were made for the transfer of Taylor's business to Xercon. The driver was not employed by Xercon, but was given trip money. Every attempt had been made to operate in a legal manner, said George. He maintained that he had acted like any other freight forwarder, arranging the loads and ensuring the driver had sufficient money for the trip.

He denied that the agreement with David Taylor Engineering was a complete sham and that he had carried on as if the revocation of the Xercon licence had never happened. He admitted, however, that Taylor had had little involvement with the vehicle, that the vehicle had been on hire to Taylor since about August 1986, and that no money had so far changed hands.

After the magistrates found the charges proved, Worthy indicated that the company had previous convictions for using permits with intent to deceive. Xercon was fined a total of £4,000 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of 2244.50.


comments powered by Disqus