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 
Tribunal slams DTC's reasoning
Page 13
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
:y Chris Tindall THE TRANSPORT Tribunal has allowed an appeal by a transport company, calling a Deputy Traffic Commissioner's reasoning "inadequate" after she revoked the company's licence and decided that its transport manager had lost his repute.
In a rebuke to DTC Mary Kane's judgement over South Lincs Plant Hire, Tribunal president Hugh Carlisle OC said she had failed to carry out a proper balancing exercise. He also criticised her language after the firm appeared at public inquiry for weekly rest offences.
Although a VOSA investigation revealed 26 examples of insufficient weekly rest and 40 examples of the tacho mode switch being used incorrectly, Carlisle said the offences arose from days of driving small distances and were only an hour or two short of the required 45 hours. Apart from one isolated case there was no suggestion of inadequate daily rest or tiredness.
One driver had consistently parked his vehicle near his home rather than at the designated operating centre. The company immediately applied for authorisation of his address as an additional operating centre and this was granted. Drivers and director Brett Maddison, who was also the transport manager. all admitted the offences during VOSA interviews.
The DTC described Maddison's
conduct as "horrendous" and added that -the potential for risk and damage is immense': She didn't disqualify Maddison as a director, but said he had lost his repute as a TM.
However, the Tribunal said the DTC' should properly assess the company's failings: "We think from the language used by the DTC, she failed to distinguish the nature of the rest offences in the present case from those in which tiredness are a part. We are satisfied that the DTC misdirected herself and that she ought to have concluded that this was not a case for revocation."