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
189
190 
Identity scam costs operator his 0-licence
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
One operator is banned for life and another is refused a licence as
a 'fronting' exercise is exposed.
A NORFOLK OPERATOR who performed a 'fronting exercise' to allow a disqualified operator to run HGVs has had his licence revoked and been banned indefinitely from holding an 0-licence in any traffic area.
Lenwade-based George Wright, trading as Wright Transport Services, had been called before the Eastern Traffic Commissioner, Geoffrey Simms, at a Cambridge disciplinary inquiry. At the same inquiry the TC refused an application for anew licence by Wright's associates,Luton-based EA Scaffolding & Systems, which had been using Wright's licence. That company's director, Robert Vernon, had been disqualified from holding an 0-licence for six months in December 2000 and had held no licence since. Operating from home
Last July, Wright's licence was suspended for 14 days because of the use of an unauthorised centre, when he was found to be illegally operating a vehicle from his Norfolk home.
Subsequently, traffic examiner Fiona Rutland said she visited Wright's authorised Luton premises in July to determine who was actually using certain vehicles and to verify compliance with the 14-day suspension order. She was told that four vehicles were based at the site and she saw two parked there on a subsequent visit. When interviewed, Wright claimed he operated the vehicles on behalf of EA Scaffolding since the revocation of EA Scaf
folding's licence in December 2000. This was in exchange for the loan of f25,000-worth of plant and equipment. However, it turned out that EA Scaffolding employed the drivers and owned the vehicles, rendering the use of Wright's licence illegal.
Wright said that he successfully applied for a licence in the autumn of 2000, when his brother was employed by EA Scaffolding. He found it uneconomical to employ his own drivers to operate the vehicles hauling scaffolding as an independent activity because the vehicles were idle for much of the day so scaffolders employed by EA Scaffolding were used as drivers.
Vernon said his company was now seeking a licence because Wright was winding down his business. During the suspension period last July another haulier had provided alternative transport. For both operators,Tim Ridyard said they had entered into the agreement in good faith. If it was flawed, it was a forgivable error rather than an act of dishonesty.
The TC said that the four Luton-based vehicles were owned by and registered to EA Scaffolding, which paid for their servicing and maintenance. It was claimed that Wright paid the drivers and invoiced EA Scaffolding monthly, but he considered that to be a fiction. EA Scaffolding did not hold a licence and its use of those vehicles was unlawful. He considered that it was unfit to hold a licence. Holding that Wright had lost his repute, the TC said that Wright applied for a licence when
EA Scaffolding's licence was under threat in 2000 and EA Scaffolding's application was received shortly after notice was given of the suspension of Wright's licence last July. Fronting exercise He believed Wright's licence application in 2000 had been a "fronting exercise", with the purpose of disguising that Vernon, a disqualified person, was operating goods vehicles.lhat was thoroughly disreputable conduct that struck at the very heart of the licensing system, the TC said. •
DON'T BE SHY-ASK!
CM 's legal section welcomes your questions which will be answered in print by top transport lawyers.
Whether your question is about overloading, drivers' hours, or any aspect of employment law or driving legislation, we will endeavour to give our experts' interpretation of the law. Questions can only be answered in CM's pages. Write to Patric Cunnane, Legal Editor, Commercial Motor, Quadrant House, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5AS; telephone 020 8652 3678, or e-mail: patric.cunnane@rbi.co.uk