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
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202 
Family row over ownership of a proposed operating centre
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
At an operator's fourth public inquiry the TC said it was lucky to hang onto its 0-licence, and warned it must do things 'spot on' in future.
AN OPERATOR which has "been under a cloud for a long time" must prove it owns the land where it plans to expand its business after a family dispute raised a questionmark over the site's ownership.
Telford-based Rob Hughes Transport was appearing at its fourth public inquiry; this time it was called before West Midland Traffic Commissioner David Dixon at a Birmingham disciplinary inquiry. The TC was also considering an application to add three trailers to the firm's existing three-vehicle licence.
The TC said the company had failed to return two licence discs after the licence was curtailed at a public inquiry last October. He also had to be satisfied that the operating centre was available for use and that the company was in lawful occupation.
The land in question was part-owned by John and Philip Hughes,father and uncle to director Robert Hughes, who had given their consent to its use. However, Cohn Hughes, another uncle of Robert Hughes, also claimed part ownership and he had re fused consent. John, Philip and Cohn Hughes have no connection with Rob Hughes Transport, other than their relationship to its director.
For the company, John Dyne said it had been operating from the site for nearly eight years and in that time no action had been taken to have it evicted. The way forward might be to grant interim authority for the trailers until the matter was resolved.
After the TC had commented that the company had an unchallenged right to use the operating centre for three vehicles, Geoffrey Parry, appearing for Cohn Hughes, argued that it had no permission to use the site as the three owners had not consented together.
The TC said he felt it would be wrong to grant interim authority because of the uncertainty over whether the company was in lawful occupation of the site or not.
He gave the company three months to produce documentary evidence to satisfy him that it was in lawful occupation on terms that would enable it to operate trailers from the site.
Non-return was an oversight
With regard to the failure to return the licence identity discs, director Robert Hughes said that had been due to an oversight.
The TC said given the company's history, and the fact that this was its fourth public inquiry, he felt Hughes would have made it his business to read letters from the Traffic Area Office carefully.
He did not think it would be appropriate to Lake action against the licence. But in the long term,if Hughes wanted to carry on operating he must do things spot-on in future. The company was not any old operator, as it had been under a cloud for a long time. It had been fortunate to retain its licence. •