AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Operator fingered by French has revocation upheld

19th January 2006
Page 35
Page 35, 19th January 2006 — Operator fingered by French has revocation upheld
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?

AN INTERNATIONAL operator has lost its appeal against a two-year 0-licence disqualification. The company had been investigated for a string of offences after a truck was checked by French enforcement officers.

The tribunal said there was "overwhelming" evidence to revoke the licence for seven vehicles and seven trailers held by Stoke-on-Trent-based Danny W Poole International. The company's transport manager, Danny Poole, had refused to co-operate with VOSA officers.

However, they directed West Midland Traffic Commissioner David Dixon to reconsider his decision to disq ualify the directors Anthony and Joanne Poole indefinitely until they agreed to appear before him. This was held to be "disproportionate and unfair".

The TC had been told that an investigation began after the French authorities identified offences at Eurotunnel Cheriton and Coquettes. The investigation revealed the following: • Two vehicles were not specified on the licence • Four inteniational journeys had been made without a community authorisation • Record sheets for three vehicles were missing for a significant period, including 9,344km missing for one vehicle • Four offences of insufficient daily rest had been committed • Three drivers had failed to use the mode switch correctly The TC found that both the company and Danny Poole had lost their repute.

The tribunal said VOSA's attempts to interview Danny Poole had been resisted. Eventually a meeting was arranged at his solicitor's office but after waiting for over an hour the VOSA officers were told that Danny Poole did not agree to see them.

A written statement was produced but some of it was shown to be knowingly wrong. The tribunal regarded this as a had case.


comments powered by Disqus