AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Flyleader fails in licence bid

19th October 1989
Page 22
Page 22, 19th October 1989 — Flyleader fails in licence bid
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?

• Metropolitan Licensing Authority, Air Vice Marshall Ronald Ashford, has refused to grant an 0-Licence to tipper operator Flyleader.

The company, of Staffs Road, Leyton, had applied for a new 10-vehicle national licence, having operated under interim authority since February. It had originally sought a licence in February 1988, but failed to supply the required information. The directors at that time were Joe Dempsey and Debra Dempsey with a declared operating centre at the Royal Albert Dock, which was also used by TAM Haulage.

In February Mrs Dempsey told Ashford that she was no longer associated with Joe Dempsey and a divorce was taking place, Mr D Shadbolt would replace him as director and secretary. She admitted she had used vehicles illegally, but denied she had traded as Flyleader. Only one of her drivers had fly-tipped, she said; he was being prosecuted and she had not been involved.

Joe Dempsey was the probable owner of Crowest, a company operating vehicles without a licence, said Ashford. He had also traded as TAM Haulage, whose Operator's Licence was revoked in February.

Ashford found it difficult to fathom the precise relationship of the three firms between June 1988 and January 1989. He accepted that Flyleader's record since February 1989 was unblemished but was satisfied that Flyleader was functioning as a business entity in October 1988, contrary to statements made by its directors. It had been convicted in October 1988 of using a vehicle that was overloaded, untaxed and unauthorised and there was evidence of fly-tipping by two of its vehicles, in November 1988 and January 1989.

Ashford concluded that Flyleader's record since February did not off-set its previous behaviour. That conduct demonstrated a disregard for the law so serious that it could not be overlooked.


comments powered by Disqus