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 
TC's decision is overturned by Tribunal
Page 23
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE TRANSPORT Tribunal has quashed a Traffic Commissioner's decision to revoke a haulier's licence and issue a disqualification order.
South-Eastern & Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner Philip Brown (pictured right) had revoked the licence of J Coyle Haulage and disqualified director John Coyle from holding or obtaining an 0-licence for six months because of fraudulent maintenance contracts ifiie Greenford-based company held a licence for three vehicles and three trailers. It had been called before the TC after .
information was passed from the
Metropolitan Police that its maintenance contracts with Kelly Transport, of Watford, and J Callanan Repairs and Services might not be genuine. Coyle accepted that the purported contract with Kelly Transport, signed by a '13 Kelly', was a false document. He alleged that the document had been changed by transport consultant John Plum, also known as Plumridge, without his knowledge.
The TC believed Coyle had been involved in production of false documents. (`Maintenance provider was an 'invention; CM 19 March).
The Tribunal said it was clear Plum had added the name of Kelly Transport to the contract with J Callanan, so the name '13 Kelly' could be added to maintenance sheets for work by Callanan. Plum had used an embosser to impress the name Kelly Transport on to a number of documents. Plum's matter came to light. The embossed stamp of Kelly Transport was not the Coyle had terminated services as soon as the easily visible because it had no colour. Therefore, it was entirely possible that Coyle would not notice at that stage. The fact that he did not was an administrative fault but not necessarily dishonest, especially when Callanan was adamant that he alone did the work from 2002 until 2009.
The Tribunal did not consider that the company deserved licence revocation or that there was any basis for disqualification.