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 
Appeal by Katharine Oliver is dismissed
Page 24
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The wife of disgraced haulier Stuart Oliver remains disqualified after the Tribunal finds her to be -untruthful".
THE TRANSPORT Tribunal accused Katharine Oliver of providing "untruthful" evidence when it dismissed her appeal against her disqualification from holding or obtaining an 0-licence for three-and-a-half years.
The disqualification runs from the date of the revocation of the licence held by Hexharn-based JW Swan & Partners, Oliver's previous operation.
Oliver, wife of disgraced haulier Stuart Oliver, and her mother, Elsie Swan, had earlier won their appeals against their initial indefinite disqualification by NorthEastern Deputy Traffic Commissioner Beverley Bell. The Transport Tribunal had directed the matter be reconsidered by a different TC.
Stuart Oliver was one of two partners in William Martin Oliver & Partners given prison sentences for conspiracy to falsify tachograph records (CM 24 March 2005).
In December 2007, DTC Bell had revoked the licence held by JW Swan & Partners, after ruling it had been used for the sole purpose of allowing vehicles previously operated by the Oliver partnership to continue operation (CM 17 January 2008).
Also that month, DTC Bell had spotted a vehicle without an 0-licence disc with a tank belonging to Kilfrost, one of Oliver's major customers, An investigation revealed that the registered keeper was the Swan partnership, that it was insured by the Swan partnership and that it was on a finance agreement with Stuart Oliver.
The DTC disqualified Katharine Oliver and her mother, Elsie Swan (CM 19 June and 7 August 2008).
The Tribunal said the DTC was a potential witness, which meant she had no option other than to distance herself from the investigation, from the preparation for the public inquiry and from conducting the public inquiry itself (CM 2 October 2008).
In his decision following a further hearing, DTC Mark Hinchliffe said that when spoken to by VOSA officials, Katharine Oliver responded with challenges, prevarication, accusation and obfuscation (CM 8 and 22 January).
Dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal said that Katharine Oliver had said she had taken direction from her husband until DTC Hinchliffe's decision, but stopped when she found he was having an affair. This confirmed the conclusion that the assurances she made about Stuart Oliver not exploiting his links to the Swan family were worthless.
The Tribunal also considered that Katharine Oliver was untruthful in relation to important parts of her evidence.
It added that she still appeared to believe she was the best judge of the place that should be authorised as an operating centre and of whom should be transport manager.
It was of little consequence to her whether or not formal authorisation had been granted by the TC. That attitude was unacceptable.
*See case two, opposite top, for another Katharine Oliver-related story.