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 
Absent drink-driver loses licence appeal
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A DRIVER banned fordrink-driving has failed to win back his 0-licence at an appeal before the Transport Tribunal. The tribunal ruled that Starunore, Harrow basedJames Kearney had only himself to blame for failing to provide financial evidence as requested.
In August 2007, Kearney's solicitor notified the Traffic Commissioner that he had been convicted of failing to provide a specimen of breath and wilfully obstructing a constable, for which he was fined £300 and disqualified for 12 months, reduced to nine months if rehabilitation training was undertaken.
The solicitor said the vehicle had been sold but Kearney wanted to retain his 0-licence so he could reenter road haulage when he had served his ban. The Traffic Area Office (TAO) asked for financial evidence and the IC was considering suspending the liceni until July 2008. Kearney was invited to make writtt representations within 21 days. No reply was receivt and the licence was revoked on 2 November.
In its notice of appeal Kearney's solicitor sa Kearney was unaware of the TAO's letter as he Iv been abroad;if he had been aware of the requiremer he would have complied with them. The fact he w unaware was not Kearney's fault and he should n be put in any worse position than if he had complii with the request.
The Tribunal did not agree that Kearney was n at fault. It said he had gone abroad without notifyii either the TAO or his solicitor at a time when a ref to the solicitor's letter was awaited.