AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Ethos Recycling loses its appeal against O-licence revocation after pre-pack

5th May 2011, Page 8
5th May 2011
Page 8
Page 8, 5th May 2011 — Ethos Recycling loses its appeal against O-licence revocation after pre-pack
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

By Roger Brown

A WASTE HAULIER that had its O-licence revoked after it failed to promptly tell a Trafic Commissioner (TC) it had been sold to administrators under a pre-pack deal has lost its appeal to win it back.

Upper Tribunal Judge Mark Hinchliffe upheld the November 2010 decision of South Eastern and Metropolitan TC Philip Brown to revoke the licence of Uxbridge-based Ethos Recycling on the basis there had not been a “proper, timely and full notiication” to the TC regarding a change in circumstances. Ethos Recycling went into administration in February 2010, with an estimated deiciency to creditors of more than £11m. It changed its name to PIT.101 in March 2010, and the business went into liquidation in May 2010.

The goodwill of Ethos Recycling was then sold to Ethos Environmental Management as part of a pre-pack arrangement with administrators.

The business wrote to Brown’s ofice in early November 2010 – before the decision – saying it believed a previous director had told the TC’s ofice about the administration and transfer of the goodwill.

On appeal, Ethos Environmental Management said it wanted a public inquiry held so it could present evidence and submissions.

At the appeal hearing, Hinch

liffe also considered whether Brown should have used paragraph 31 (4) of The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995 in making his decision.

This enables a TC to allow a licence to continue in certain situations, such as administration or liquidation.

However, the appeal judge said: “There can therefore be no criticism of the TC’s decision in this case. He was not informed of events as they happened, and had no timely opportunity to consider whether to make a direction under Paragraph 31(4).”

Tags

Organisations: Upper Tribunal
Locations: Uxbridge

comments powered by Disqus