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
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186 
Demolition firm finally runs out of time
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A DEMOLITION company which failed to renew its licence on time has had the termination of that licence upheld by the Transport Tribunal, which decided there were no exceptional circumstances to overrule the TC.
Warlingham, Surrey-based Sussex Demolition Services had its licence withdrawn by South Eastern & Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner Christopher Heaps for non-payment of the renewal fee.
The Tribunal heard that on 2 March the company was sent a notice to pay its licence fees by 30 April.
The notice stipulated that if the lees were to be paid annually, it was necessary to send both an annual fee of £44 and a continuation fee payable once every five years of £336: a total of £380. The notice also contained a once-only five-year payment option of £516, but warned that non-payment by the due date would result in termination of the licence.
A reminder was sent on 11 April and a cheque for £44 was then received.That was acknowledged by the Traffic Area, which pointed out that the fee of 1336 was also payable by 30 April. No further fee was sent.
Company secretary Simon Jones said the company had problems with its mail due to the premises being remote. He claimed the two reminders had not been received. He accepted that the initial notice had been received, and that the company had responded by sending in £44. He also agreed the notice had clearly set out the requirement to send £336, admitting there had been a failure to read the document and that this had been an error on the company's part.
NO EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
The Tribunal concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify setting aside the time limit for payment of the required licence fees.