r CASE FOUR
Page 24
![](http://commercial-motor.sec.cdn.netcopy.thompsonjames.co.uk/issues/19th-march-2009/24.jpg?size=300x450&token=5706c824b01bdde0e803b772d40d601c)
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Maintenance provider was an 'invention'
A HAULIER HAS had his licence revoked after his association with a dishonest transport consultant led to the invention of a fictitious maintenance provider.
South Eastern & Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner Philip Brown revoked the international licence held by J Coyle Haulage of Greenford for producing fraudulent maintenance contracts.
The TC also chose to disqualify director John Coyle from holding or obtaining an 0-licence for a period of six months.
The company held a licence for three vehicles and three trailers and had been called before the TC after receiving information from the Metropolitan Police that its maintenance contracts with Kelly Transport. of Watford, and J Callanan Repairs and Services might not be genuine.
Coyle accepted the purported contract with Kelly Transport, signed by a P Kelly, was a false document. He alleged that the document had been altered by transport consultant John Plum without his knowledge. He hired Plum as a transport consultant in August 2004 and Plum dealt with the paperwork. He denied any knowledge of P Kelly or Kelly Transport, saying that he had no cause to look at the signature on the maintenance contract.
The TC stated that Plum, otherwise known as Plumridge, has been convicted of a number of offences involving dishonesty, including the falsification of bank accounts, maintenance contracts, and certificates of professional competence related to 0-licences.
He didn't find Coyle's evidence credible and believed he had been involved in the production of false documents giving the impression maintenance work since 2002 had been done by Kelly Tiansport, a company that did not appear to have existed. No copy of an original maintenance contract between J Coyle Haulage and Callanan had been produced before the inquiry.
His decision would remind all those involved in 0-licensing, that those whose actions struck at the heart of the system could not be allowed to continue to operate.