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 
Firm wins appeal over Traffic Area paperwork
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
.11 &B FRYER FARMS has won an appeal against a ruling that it was not authorised to operate trailers.
The Transport Tribunal decided that the firm was operating two vehicles. It owned two trailers and believed it had authorisation for one of them, but the North Western Traffic Area Office disagreed.
In December 2003 the TAO wrote to the firm after a report from VOSA claiming it was operating two trailers without licence authority. The firm replied that one trailer was only used on the farm. It pointed out that one of the vehicles authorised on the licence was described as an "articulated refrigerated box body-. The TAO wrote to say it seemed this vehicle was added as an articulated unit in error. It asked the firm to complete another application form and to pay a further fee of £168. The firm appealed against that decision. At the hearing a spokesman said it was aggrieved by the inefficiency of the Traffic Area Office and the fact that no-one had apologised for the inconvenience or embarrassment caused by the claim that it was using an unauthorised vehicle.
In fact, it had been operated for two years on the basis of apparently valid documentation.
The Tribunal said the firm must be presumed to have authorisation for the articulated vehicle, including its trailer, from the date on its licence. The TAO was entitled to collect the correct fee from the renewal date, but the Tribunal considered that a retrospective fee should be waived and the licence should be amended to record the authorisation applied for and apparently granted.