AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Operator can't say he wasn't

20th May 2004, Page 29
20th May 2004
Page 29
Page 29, 20th May 2004 — Operator can't say he wasn't
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?

warned... When three qualified sources say you're running illegally it makes

sense to listen...

A WELSH operator who ran six trucks illegally with a "cavalier approach to good repute" has been refused a new licence for 12 vehicles and must wait until September before a fresh application is considered.

William Cook, trading as DMP Contractors of Pontardawe, Swansea, continued to break the law despite expert advice from three sources, including a traffic examiner and the Traffic Area Office. Rejected

Welsh Traffic Commissioner David Dixon turned down his application for a new national licence authorising 12 vehicles. Cook had previously held a restricted licence for three vehicles with his partner, Peter Miles.

The TC said that soon after the restricted licence was granted maintenance was contracted out. This was not reported to the TAO. In January 2003 the operation moved to Pontardawe without any application being made for a new operating centre and in June 2003 the partnership was dissolved. In January Cook was told by the TAO and a traffic examiner that he could not operate under the old licence and that he was not authorised to operate until an interim licence was granted. His newly appointed transport manager also warned him against operating under the old licence but he ignored this advice

as he had contracts to fulfil.

Cook claimed his secretary had told him that a letter had arrived granting an interim licence but he was unable to find the letter.

The TC said there was no record in his office of any such letter being sent and Cook agreed that no new 0-licence discs had been issued. The TC added that a letter was sent to Cook in March saying the application for an interim licence had been deferred and telling him that he had no authority to operate.

Cook admitted that he had been operating six vehicles since the beginning of July 2003. He had believed that he could operate extra vehicles for up to 28 days but had not checked with the TAO. He was unable to explain why the additional vehicles had continued to operate for more than 28 days.

Refusing the application, the TC pointed out that three qualified people had told Cook he had no legal basis for running goods vehicles. Even if his secretary had told him an interim licence had been granted, it was not acceptable to continue operating on hearsay from an unqualified employee. Illegality He believed Cook had continued working to maintain his income and had hoped he would get away with the illegality by the early grant of the new licence. Such a cavalier approach

went to the heart of good repute. However, good repute could be regained by the passage of time. The TC would be willing to accept a fresh application for a licence in September, nine months after he had been advised not to break the law. Cook was warned that if he was granted a new licence it would be for fewer than 12 vehicles because of his maintenance history when running six vehicles. •


comments powered by Disqus