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
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202 
No return for trucks on illegally hired discs
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Scheme designed to circumvent the law means impounded truc not be returned as it is not clear exactly who owns them.
AN OPERATOR who said he believed he had licence authority to operate after paying a third party for licence discs has lost his company's bid for the return of two impounded vehicles.
Maxwell Demolition (1972), based in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, had sought the return of the vehicles from North Eastern Traffic CommissionerTom Macartney.
Traffic examiner Anusia Bainbridge said that on 2 and 5 July vehicles driven by James Maxwell were stopped. Both displayed 0licence discs in the name of Terry Mulchinock, trading asTerry Mulchinock Transport.
The vehicles had been removed from Mulchinock's licence on 20 May. Maxwell had said he was employed as a driver and the transport manager of Maxwell Demolition (1972).
Licence revoked
Maxwell Demolition's 0-licence was revoked in June 2004 and an application for an 0-licence by associate company Maxwell Demolition (1972) was refused in November 2004.
Maxwell said he owned both vehicles, having taken them in lieu of money owed to him by Maxwell Demolition, before selling them to Maxwell Demolition (1972). That company was owned by his son Maurice's wife.
He had contacted Stephen O'Sullivan, who offered a service supplying 0-licence discs. Maxwell said O'Sullivan had agreed to provide 0-licence discs for a set-up fee of 1800, plus £800 monthly. Maxwell received the discs through the post from Mulchinock, whom he had never met or spoken to. He had agreed that his firm would enter an 80:20 partnership with Mulchinock.
Maxwell conceded that, as the vehicles had been removed from Mulchinock's licence on 20 May, there had been no valid 0-licence for either vehicle from then on.
For Maxwell Demolition (1972), John Reid said he was present when Maxwell telephoned O'Sullivan and challenged the legality of the agreement and O'Sullivan had stated on the speaker telephone that it would be "best to say that the vehicles were on hire-.
Maxwell had been deceived by dishonest people. He had not known that the vehicles were operating without licence authority.
Refusing to return the vehicles, the TC said the arrangements with the Maxwell family and the complication of two limited companies and a family of similar names, made it necessary to prove ownership of both detained vehicles by validated documentation in some detail.
That had not been done. Maxwell Demolition (1972) was unable to prove it owned the vehicles.
He could not accept Maxwell believed such an arrangement could be proper. It was clearly designed to circumvent the legislation..