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 
Scaffolder ignored warnings from TAO
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A LONDON scaffolding firm which operated three vehicles despite the refusal of an interim licence and repeated warnings from the Traffic Area Office has lost its bid to get them back.
The vehicles belonging to Deptford-base Silks Scaffold Co were impounded in October and November.
Applying to South Eastern & Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner Christopher Heaps the company said it applied for an 0-licence and sent the correct fees plus a fee for a temporary licence. When the cheque was cashed it assumed that everything was OK.
The TC said that in May an application for a licence for five vehicles and two trailers was refused on financial grounds. In June the company submitted a second application for seven vehicles and five trailers and requested an interim licence.
The TAO wrote to the company in July and August warning that it had no authority to operate vehicles. A similar warning was included in the letter dated 18 October refusing an interim licence.
The company's sole director,James Webb, had previously been a director of Jays Scaffold services whose licence was revoked in October 2005. The TC was confident Webb was fully aware of the 0-licensing requirements— not only because he had been a director of a company whose licence had been revoked,but also because the first application had been refused.
The company had received three letters pointing Out that it had no authority to operate LGVs.