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 
'Evasive and hostile' partners have their licence revocation upheld by Tribunal
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE REVOCATION OF the five-vehicle licence held by Haslingden, Lancs-based Iuanina Parr. trading as Parr Plant, has been upheld by the Transport Tribunal on appeal (CM 16 November). The licence had been revoked by North-Western Traffic Commissioner Beverley Bell in January 2006.
Bell had been told that four immediate and five delayed prohibitions had been issued to Parr vehicles and that there had been a 75% failure rate at annual test. The vehicle examiner, Mr Harrison, concluded that Iuanina Parr was the operator in name only and that her husband, David Parr. was actually responsible for the day-to-day operations.
He said David Parr had employed an array of tactics in order to thwart him in his duties.
Agreeing that he had followed the vehicle examiner's car for 21 miles, David Parr said he had been annoyed about the issue of a prohibition and he had flashed his lights at the car to make the examiner stop so he could talk to him.
He claimed that the vehicle examiner had conducted a vendetta against him. He admitted the 0-licence was his, saying it was held by his wife so he could avoid paying maintenance to his previous wife.
In her decision Bell had said she preferred the evidence of the Vosa witnesses to that of the Parrs. She concluded that David Parr sought to get what he wanted by resorting to bullying tactics. She found that the obtaining of the 0-licence had been a sham and that throughout the life of the licence the business had been run as a partnership.
Upholding the TC's decision, the tribunal described the evidence presented by the Parrs as "evasive and hostileon occasion. It concluded that the TC had been entitled to make an assessment of whose evidence she preferred and she had done that.