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 
Firm that used vehicles without authorisation loses appeal
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
CAPEL RAIL SERVICES has lost its appeal against the rejection of its application for a 12-vehicle, twotrailer licence based in Tonbridge. Kent. SouthEastern Deputy Traffic Commissioner Christopher Heaps rejected the bid because vehicles had been operated after the refusal of an interim licence.
MD Nigel Summers had bought the assets and goodwill of Cape! Fencing, Capel Fencing Holdings and Capel Rail. He had believed that the Capel Fencing 0-licence had been included in the assets. When he learnt of the revocation his accountants had advised that the company should operate under another 0-licence. Six vehicles had been operated for six months under a licence held by Owen Mullen.
Mullen did not have day-to-day control of the vehicles and had not realised that he should not have operated in that way (-Firm that ignored warnings has 0-licence bid rejected'. CM 19 July 2007).
Appearing before the Transport Tribunal, Tim Nesbitt, for the company, argued that the Deputy TC had been wrong to treat the unauthorised use of vehicles as something that automatically led to loss of repute. He pointed out that there had been 20 years of legal operation under the Capel Fencing licence.
The management team had been under pressure to keep the business going while paying off the old business's debts and keeping 45 people employed.
The Tribunal decided this was a serious case of illegal operation and there was abundant evidence that Summers knew the operation of vehicles while using someone else's licence was illegal.