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 
Transport Tribunal quashes revocation
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE REVOCATION of the 0-licence held by Dewsbury-based Keith Oxley, trading as Crowther Trading, has been quashed by the Transport Tribunal on appeal.
Oxley's two-vehicle restricted licence was revoked because he had not replied to letters sent from the Traffic Area Office (TAO).
In April 2008, the TAO wrote to Oxley telling him that since he had changed his operating centre, a variation application was needed. In a letter dated 7 September 2008, he was warned the TAO proposed to revoke his licence, but that he could request a public inquiry.
On 25 September, he was warned a failure to reply could lead to revocation.
On 13 October, Oxley wrote to the TAO saying he had planned to surrender the licence, but now wished to renew it.
However, on 29 October the TAO wrote to say that since no reply had been received to the 25 September letter, his 0-licence had been revoked.
Oxley claimed he had phoned the TAO to say he was reapplying for a licence before he sent the letter of 13 October, and he had been told that no decision had been made. He also maintained he had written to the TAO before any decision had been reached, and said that in view of the recession, he wanted to retain the ability to capitalise on any opportunities that came his way.
The Tribunal was troubled by two aspects of this case. First was Oxley's contention that when he had called the TAO, he had been told "all was not yet lost': Second, the letter recording the revocation was dated two weeks after Oxley's letter had arrived. It contained no reference to that letter, nor an explanation as to why it wasn't being taken into account.