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 
McFletch wins appeal over fines
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Halstead, Essex-based McFletch Hire Services has won an appeal against the revocation of its licence and the disqualification of both the company and its sole director Christopher Fletcher from holding or obtaining an Operator's Licence Indefinitely.
The company, which held a restricted licence for five vehicles, had been called before the Eastern Traffic Commissioner Geoffrey Simms following information from the police that Fletcher owed a substantial amount in unpaid fines. He made the revocation and disqualification orders after concluding that Fletcher, as sole director and shareholder, was no longer fit to hold an 0-licence because of his unpaid fines. He also held that the company had insufficient financial resourc.es(CM4-10 April).
Before the Transport Tribunal, Jeremy Fear, for the company, pointed out that the debts were those of a director and not the company. Even if they were relevant, there had been no material change as they had been in existence before the licence was granted, he said. He argued that the TC had failed to consider the limitations in regard to fitness of holders of restricted licences the provisions for mandatory revocation for loss of repute, professional competence and lack of finance did not apply. Accordingly, the TC failed to consider whether the "activity" was a relevant activity as defined in the legislation. fear also complained that the TO had dealt with the issue of financial resource without giving the company an opportunity of addressing him on it.
Accepting those arguments and remitting the case to the TC to consider the company's financial position, the Tribunal said that it had been mentioned that Fletcher had offered to pay off his unpaid fines in full. They had taken the view that if that occurred it would be unnecessary for the IC to consider financial resources further. However they had been Informed after October that the fines still remained unpaid.
CASE HIGHLIGHT
Section 27 of the Goods Vehicles (licensing of Operators) Act 1995 does not apply to restricted licences. The restrictions imposed In s13(2) of the Act limit the extent to which fitness may be considered and "activities" as defined in pare 3 of Schedule 2 does not include unpaid personal fines, if a TO is dissatisfied with the financial evidence he ought to give the operator an opportunity to deal with it. The extent to which a Traffic Commissioner may deal with finances in respect of a restricted licence is limited, as set out in s13(61 of the Act.