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 
Convictions count against company's licence appeal
Page 23
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Pontefract-based JR Tyres Collection & Disposal has lost an appeal against the revocation of its licence because of maintenance problems and convictions.
North Eastern Traffic Commissioner Tom Macartney had revoked the licence for five vehicles and three trailers despite director David Singer blaming the problems on the company's previous owners.
The TC was told that seven immediate and five delayed prohibitions had been issued to the company's vehicles and that it had not used its authorised operating centre at Baghill Lane for some time. In addition, there had been 12 convictions over the previous 15 months for failing to ensure the return of tachograph charts within 21days and using vehicles without test certificates and with an uncalibrated tachograph. Revoking the 0licence and disqualifying the company from hold ing one until December 2003, the TC said that Singer had no doubt bought the company at a price that reflected the problems inherited. The company's record was abysmal (CM 9-15 May). Singer told the Transport Tribunal that the TC had concentrated on the company's record rather than how it was operating since the changes he had introduced. Two of the three prohibitions issued since he took over related to the movement of a vehicle and trailer which he was unaware were still specified on the licence and which were on their way to be scrapped.
Dismissing the appeal, the tribunal said it was of note that three immediate 'S' marked prohibitions had been issued following Singer's takeover of the company. They were not satisfied that the explanation given was sufficient for the TO to disregard those prohibitions.
In the absence of evidence of how the company was being operated under Singer's directorship, ruled the tribunal, it was difficult to see how the TC could have arrived at any other decision,