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 
Tribunal refuses licence bid from Dove that's a phoenix
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Transport Tribunal has rejected a Kent firm's appeal against a TC's refusal to grant it a licence. Mike Jewell reports.
DOVE COLLECTIONS (UK) has lost an appeal at the Transport Tribunal against the refusal of its 0-licence application. The Tribunal determined that it had gained an "unfair advantage" over its competitors by operating without licence authorisation.
Dove Collections (UK) had applied for a licence for seven vehicles and two trailers, but this had been turned down by South-Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner Christopher Heaps. The TC labelled the firm a "phoenix operation".
The firm's sole director, Adam Dinsey, had also been the sole director of Dove Collections, which had gone into liquidation in May 2005 owing the Inland Revenue £37,000. Its licence was revoked in February 2006.
In autumn 2005 the new firm had been offered work which it accepted. It had been operating seven vehicles and two trailers since October 2005.
Refusing the application, the TC had said the unauthorised operation "went to the heart of operator licensing" and the fact that the company was a phoenix operation offended the principle of fair competition.
While the unauthorised operation had not posed a risk to public safety, deliberate operation without a licence over many months and after a formal warning meant that the firm did not meet the requirement to be of good repute.
Appearing for Dove, Paul Carless told the Tribunal that the TC should have taken account of the fact that an 0-licence had been applied for in January 2006, and that once an interim licence was granted in March 2006 the firm's operational systems were exemplary.
While the firm may have gained an unfair advantage over other operators as a result of operating without a licence, any financial advantage had been small, Carless added, saying it was now a first-class operation.
Dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal said it was satisfied that a significant period of unauthorised operation by an experienced haulage operator without any explanation being given to the TC was a serious matter.
By operating without licence authorisation, Dove had been able to operate when its financial resources were insufficient to satisfy the minimum requirements under the legislation.
By doing so the finn had been able to profit from an unfair advantage that it had gained over operators that complied with the law. Consequently the Tribunal refused to accept that Dove was of good repute. •