AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Late licence fee and 'mho offences ended in a fine

22st June 2000, Page 22
22st June 2000
Page 22
Page 22, 22st June 2000 — Late licence fee and 'mho offences ended in a fine
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?

Using a vehicle after his 0-licence and its vehicle excise licence had expired, as well as two tachograph offences, has cost

Caernarfon owner-driver Gareth Wynne Janes £723.66 in fines, costs and back duty.

Jones, who trades as Wynnes Transport, pleaded guilty before the Wrexham magistrates to one offence of using

a vehicle without an 0-licence or YE!), one offence of failing to use a tachograph and one offence of failing to have a six-yearly tachograph calibration check.

Prosecuting for the Vehicle Inspectorate, Peter Edwards said Jones was seen driving a vehicle loaded with slate waste an the A55 expressway at Holywell. It was found his 0licence had expired in May 1998, and the vehicle excise licence had expired in November 1999.

When Janes was asked for his tachograph records, he produced a log book, saying he believed he was within the scope of the domestic drivers' hours rules. Asked why he had been using the vehicle without an 0licence or vED, Jones had said he was waiting for money that was owed to him.

For Jones, Tim Culpin said that his problems started at the end of May 1998, when his 0-licence for five vehicles expired. A cheque for the licence fee was sent the week before, but as 31 May was a Sunday it was not processed until Monday 1 June. The Traffic Area decided it had been received too late, and the licence was revoked.

Considerable correspondence had followed: then the new financial requirements for an 0 licence came in, and a five-vehicle licence required available capital of £15,000.

For a day's work a vehicle earned 1190, and the fuel alone cost £100 a day, said Culpin. Eventually Jones had obtained a one-vehicle licence, and that had proved more viable than the five-vehicle licence. The vehicle had not been taxed because Jones had to keep a certain amount of money in the bank to meet the Traffic Area's financial criteria.

Because Jones had been buying material from a quarry and delivering it to a site where he sold it, he had mistakenly thought that he was exempt from the tachograph regulations, Culpin added. The failure to have the tachograph recalibrated had just been an oversight.

The magistrates fined Jones 1267 and ordered him to pay 1371.66 back duty with £85 costs.


comments powered by Disqus