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 
PI non-attendance: appeal fails
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Surrey scaffolding company has lost its appeal against South Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner Christopher Heaps' refusal to grant it an Operator's Licence after it failed to attend an Eastbourne Public Inquiry.
In December 2001a licence application by IS Scaffolding was refused on the grounds that the proposed operating centre at Pirbright was unsuitable. In February 2002 the company made a fur ther application for a licence based at Weybridge. At the Public Inquiry in July the TC concluded in the company's absence that it was unfit to hold a licence. It had failed to disclose a number of convictions and was knowingly operating vehicles without a licence from unsuitable premises at Pirbright.
Before the Transport Tribunal, the company's accounts manager Vauneen Gill said it had not realised it was necessary to attend the Public Inquiry. Their solicitor had said it was not worth the fee of 12,000 he would have charged to represent them.
However, Gill accepted there had been unauthorised use, but did not accept that tachograph records requested had not been produced.
She realised that the company had been "stupid and naive" but, at the time, she had not been in active management. Now she had taken over there would be a different approach. Everyone in the business worked hard but their efforts were not always correctly focused in the past.
Dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal said: "A finding of unfitness to hold a licence must follow in a case of such blatant disregard of the whole framework of goods vehicle Operator Licensing."
The tribunal added that the TC could not be faulted for proceeding in the applicant's absence. Nor could he be faulted for making adverse findings on unchallenged evidence, particularly as the applicant company was provided an opportunity to explain the evidence.