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 
PI revocation overturned
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Transport Tribunal finds in favour of an operator who was guilty of naivety rather than deliberate avoidance of the law.
A TIPPER OPERATOR won back his 0-licence when the Transport Tribunal ruled that a Traffic Commissioner had been wrong to revoke the licence because of the operator's relationship with an unlicensed operator. Alan Jones. of Dunston, Northants, trades as AJ Jones Tipper & Grab Hire.
Eastern TC Geoffrey Simms had revoked Jones' three-vehicle licence and disqualified him from holding a licence for two months.
Simms had decided Jones had lost his repute because two vehicles belonging to Robert Willey, trading as JW Tipper Hire, were specified on his licence. Willey's own two licence applications had been refused.
The TC had said his decision would leave Jones free to apply for a fresh licence after a relatively short period of time without a public inquiry unless fresh concerns arose.
James Backhouse, appearing for Jones, told the Tribunal that his client had been called to public inquiry forgiving material assistance to an unlicensed operator".
He argued that such assistance was often the basis of a legitimate business relationship, such as when a freight forwarder who is not a licence holder supplies work to licensed operators.
Maintaining that there had been no intention to break the law. Backhouse said Jones had invested in Willey's business. Willey's own licence applications had been refused because of a lack of a CPC holder.
Jones had been aware of Willey's applica lions but had no part in them. Willey had provided Jones with work for the vehicles used under the AJ Jones licence and had been duly invoiced for that work by Jones. Willey invoiced Jones for the hire charges for his vehicles.
Jones had taken the traffic examiner's advice in amending this arrangement to ensure compliance with the law — VOSA had decided not to prosecute either Willey or Jones.
Not sufficient the TC had accepted that Jones' conduct had been due to naivety rather than deceit; this was insufficient to deprive him of his repute and therefore his licence.
Backhouse argued that the TC's assertion that he had to be satisfied that there was no artificiality in Jones' arrangement with Willey was not the relevant test. What he had to be satisfied about was if Jones was intentionally seeking to avoid the legislation. There was no evidence that Jones had sought to do that and ample evidence that he had not.
Agreeing with this view, the Tribunal said they did not consider that the loss of repute was justified. They regarded the revocation as inconsistent with the TC's finding that Jones' repute could be restored within two months and a new licence granted without a public inquiry.
Loss of repute appeared to be neither proportionate nor appropriate to the facts. •