Unfair and unappealing
Page 8
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Early appeals against fines for illegal immigrants are proving unsuccessful. Last week Lakeland Commercials wrote to the Prime Minister about the rejection of its appeal against an L8,c)c)c) fine. This week it's the turn of Peter Cook Transport, whose appeal against a fici,c)c)ci fine has also been rejected, even though transport solicitor Ian Rothera felt the company had a good case.
The wait continues to see just when the first appeal is won by a haulier and on what basis. In between, the whole process has been called into question by the criticism that appeals are not decided by an independent body but by the very people that decided to impose the fines in the first place— immigration officials. And then there is the issue of non-disclosure of evidence: it's hard to argue with evidence you know nothing about.
So, as things stand, hauliers are being unfairly made to do the job of immigration officials, unfairly fined when they don't do it well enough, and unfairly denied the right to an appeal by an independent body.
Ultimately, we fear the net effect can only be that it simply won't be worth the risk for many to engage in international haulage because, while the fuel may cost less, coming back into Britain can be ruinously expensive.
• It remains to be seen if, as alleged, somebody did arrange for MAN vehicles to be modified in an unauthorised way in order to keep the weight down to a specific customer spec. If it does turn out to be true, it will certainly be of more than passing interest to anyone buying or specifying a commercial vehicle. While we wait to find out, we applaud MAN for immediately launching a thorough investigation. Not everyone would have acted so honourably or, indeed, so swiftly.