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 
No mercy after 'confrontation'
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Transport Tribunal has slammed a consultant: Michael Jewell reports.
A CONTROVERSIAL TRANSPORT consultant has been savaged by the Transport Tribunal after a hearing during which he failed to delay the start of revocation and disqualification orders made against his clients.
Transport Tribunal chairman Hugh Carlisle QC said that the under-fire operator P Gallagher & Partners and its representative Alec Hayden from consultant TransConsult, had persistently adopted a confrontational position in the case, adding: -The conduct of the partners, and that of their representative, amounted to a repudiation of the regulatory regime."
No one from the firm or Trans-Consult had turned up to the first public inquiry.
In September Eastern Traffic Commissioner Geoffrey Simms had revoked the licence held by the firm, trading as Wisepak and P Pugh, and disqualified partners Patrick, Christa and Andre Gallagher from holding or obtaining an 0-licence for 12 months.
Refusing to delay implementing the TC's decision pending the partners' appeal. Carlisle said it appeared from a letter from Hayden dated 15 October that he had not seen the transcript of the hearing or the statement of the TC's reasons. Accordingly they were faxed to him on the same day. with an invitation to make representations within two days. However, no response had been received.
Instead of acting on a suggestion from the Traffic Area Office that they should apply for a new licence, the partners and their representa Lives had persisted in adopting a confrontational position, Carlisle added. It might be that one of the partners had been abroad at the time of the public inquiry, but no satisfactory explanation had been offered as to why the other partners, or a representative, failed to attend.
The TC was faced with an unopposed hearing in which the issues were not limited to that of a change of entity — which in itself was serious — but also included allegations relating to the lack of a transport manager and to the tachographs regs.
The alleged change of entity raised the further concern of lack of financial standing. Carlise remarked. The burden of establishing the requirements under the act was on the partners and this was not discharged. On the contrary the evidence was all one way and demonstrated serious non-compliance with the law. Finally. Carlisle said that he regarded the partners' prospects of success on appeal as low.
Hayden has had numerous run-ins with the Traffic Commissioners, culminating in him being barred from representing one firm, Pallas Transport, at a public inquiry (CM 2 September). A Simms: Backed up by Transport Tribunal