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 
'Wrong disc' costs skip-hire firm more than £1,800 in fines
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DISPLAYING AN 0-licence identity disc belonging to another company in the windscreen of a vehicle and having no 0-licence has cost a Hertfordshire company £1,850 in fines and costs.
A Skips, trading as AA Skips, of Welwyn Garden City, pleaded not guilty to displaying an 0-licence identity disc with intent to deceive, but guilty to using the vehicle without the authority of an 0-licence.
Traffic examiner Robert Balmer told the court he saw an 0-licence identity disc being displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle concerned which was in the name of a company not operating it at the time.
Eileen Redden, a director of the company, said she did not know that when the vehicle had left the yard it still had in its windscreen the 0-licence identity disc belonging to a previous customer to whom the vehicle had been hired.
Jeremy Fear, defending, asked the court to say that there was insufficient evidence to show that the company had an intent to deceive.
In convicting the company on the charge of displaying the 0-licence with intent to deceive magistrates said that, as a director of the company. Redden had an obligation to check the vehicle before it left the yard.
Alternatively, someone should have carried out these checks on her behalf.The company was reckless in not having made those checks and was, accordingly, guilty of deception.