AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

'Arrogant' firm gets truck back

22nd January 2004
Page 31
Page 31, 22nd January 2004 — 'Arrogant' firm gets truck back
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?

Keywords : Business / Finance

TC orders return of impounded vehicle after hire company takes steps to improve t compliance with the 0-licensing legs. Mike Jewell reports.

A HIRE COMPANY which was -almost breathtaking in its arrogance" in demanding the return of an impounded vehicle and was rebuked for hiring it to an illegal operator has won the vehicle back after deliberations by north-eastern traffic commissioner Tom Macartney (CM1 January).

While the TC held that the hire company, Close Asset Finance, had demonstrated a significant degree of fault,he recognised that steps were being taken to correct matters.

Macartney was told that the vehicle, laden with timber, had been stopped in a check south of Doncaster.The driver had stated that he was employed by JI Commercials of Nottingham, but the 0-licence disc was in the name of Timber International.The registered keeper of the vehicle was Michael Burgess, a director of Timber International. Burgess had stated that he had hired the vehicle to JI Commercials and had forgotten to take the disc out of the windscreen. Inquiries revealed thatTimber International's licence had been revoked in July.

For Close Asset,it was saidthat a hire agreement had been signed with Burgess, trading as Island International, in May 2002. The company wrote to Burgess months later asking for a copy of his 0-licence. When the copy was received there was no expiry date — theTrall icArea confirmed that his licence had been revoked in September 2002.

However. Close Asset was told the vehicle was on a licence held by Timber International and it had been happy when it saw a copy of the Timber International licence as Burgess was a director of that company. The TC said a letter written by Close Asset which asked for confirmation that the vehicle would be returned to the hirer was "almost breathtaking in its arrogance".

He remarked that the company's representative, Sharon Chaikley, had saved the day. She stated that it was no longer the intention to return the vehicle to the hirer. She promised to ensure that vehicles leased or hired by the company would be subject to 0-licensing. She had also sought advice on methods of interrogating the TAN computer system and had convinced the TC that the significant degree of fault displayed by Close Asset was being put right by her efforts.

Consequently. the TC found that the degree of fault fell slightly short of the test of "a high degree of fault" or -a wilful disregard of the obvious" which would have prevented the return of the vehicle. •


comments powered by Disqus