Curtailment amply justified says Tribunal
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Hazel Georgina Wall (Martley Landscapes and Driveways)
• When a tipper operated by Hazel Georgina Wall, trading as Martley Landscapes and Driveways, was seen by a vehicle examiner parked by the roadside he found that its excise licence had been altered and it transpired that it had been issued for a private car. The tachograph was not functioning properly and the vehicle's test certificate had expired.
Both the operator and her husband, the driver, subsequently appeared before Kidderminster magistrates. The operator admitted using a vehicle on the road without a current test certificate, and when the recording equipment was not functioning correctly. Her husband admitted three related offences, including fraudulent alteration of an excise licence. Both were conditionally discharged, having explained that in the recent past they had suffered acute financial problems.
The West Midlands LA called the operator to a public inquiry. It appeared to the LA that she no longer had sufficient financial resources for the proper operation of her business. The operator did not attend the disciplinary proceedings, but evidence was beard from her husband, the transport manager, who explained the financial difficulties and conceded that he had fraudulently altered the excise licence because they could not afford to tax the vehicle.
The operator's standard licence authorised four vehicles and trailers, but he said she had run only one, the tipper. She owned a Volvo tractive unit and trailer but had not been able to afford to maintain or repair the Volvo, The LA decided to curtail the licence to one vehicle and trailer and said he would require audited accounts upon application for renewal of the licence at the beginning of 1987.
The operator appealed against the LA's decisions and at the Transport Tribunal hearing counsel sought to persuade the Tribunal, unsuccessfully, to depart from normal practice and admit further evidence on the financial circumstances. The Tribunal thought that it could and should have been given at the public inquiry.
Counsel also argued that the LA's decision would unfairly prejudice the appellant in her application for a renewal of licence in that it prevented her from bringing her Volvo tractive unit and trailer into operation in addition to the tipper. It was also argued that the LA could have marked his disapproval by reducing the licence to two vehicles and two trailers.
In its written judgment, the Tribunal, dismissing the appeal, said the LA's curtailment of the licence was amply justified by the evidence on finances and the offences of which the appellant and her husband had been convicted.
The Tribunal said that it was plain that the LA was well aware of the effect his decision would have. 'At the foot of page 4 he explained to Mr Wall that henceforth the appellant could continue to operate the tipper lorry or alternatively could replace it with the Volvo tractive unit and trailer."