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 
TC forced to accept firm's surrender of its 0-licence
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Kent Haulier's disciplinary hearmg was aban
doned after Eastern Traffic Commissioner Geoffrey Simms accepted that the company had applied to surrender its licence before the decision was made to call it to a Public Inquiry.
Newell & Wright Transport Contractors (Felixstowe) had been called before the TC at a Cambridge Public Inquiry because of drivers' hours and tachograph convictions and an unsatisfactory maintenance report.
The traffic examiner's statements about the drivers' hours offences were all dated September 2001. However, Stephen Kiri(bright, appearing for Newell & Wright, said the company wrote to the Eastern Traffic Area in August saying it had ceased trading from Felixstowe and no longer required its Eastern Area licence. This was quickly followed up with the statutory form to which were attached the licence discs.
In November the Traffic Area wrote to the company saying that the TC was yet to determine its application to surrender the licence. It was not until the end of November that it was decided to call the company to a Public Inquiry. The company did not receive its callup letter until February of this year.
Because of this Kirkbright asserted that the TC had no power to consider taking action against the licence. He said the legislation stated a TC "shall" accept the surrender of a licence unless he or she was considering making a direction against the licence, which at tl time he wasn't.
The TC said that the part the provisions that empower( him to refuse to accept the su render of a licence was a saf guard should an operator t called to Public Inquiry and set to frustrate the TC's consider tion by surrendering the keno He accepted the argument th subsequent evidence that can to his attention could not 1e2 him to exercise that discretio