The Licensing Authorities now have additional powers to revoke 0-licences, but will they continue to use their discretion ...
Page 36
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Last October the Licensing Authorities were given additional powers to revoke 0-licences. Hidden beneath the innocuous title Goods Vehicles (Operators' Licences, Qualifications and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 are some far-reaching changes. They include: CI A new definition of "relevant conviction" LAs have to consider when granting 0-licences.
CI Power for LAs to grant temporary exemptions from the requirements of a standard licence for the use of vehicles for hire or reward on national transport operations.
El A requirement that an LA may not determine that an applicant is of good repute if he has been convicted of serious offences — or has repeatedly been convicted of road transport offences. A "serious" offence is defined as one which led to a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months; a fine exceeding level 4 (currently g1,000); or a community service order. A "road transport offence" is defined as an offence under the law relating to road transport, in particular drivers' hours and rest periods; CV weights and dimensions; and vehicle safety.
CI A definition of the minimum capital and
reserves that must be available to an applicant for, or holder of, a standard international 0-licence to be of appropriate financial standing.
CI A requirement that any company applying for or holding a standard 0-licence must have a transport manager who is of good repute and professionally competent.
The widening of the definition of "relevant conviction" enables an LA to take a much wider range of convictions into account when dealing with an operator under Section 69 of the Transport Act. However, Section 69 is discretionary. The LA may direct that a licence be revoked, suspended, curtailed or prematurely terminated, but it is left to his judgement.
Under Schedule 6 of the new regulations (Qualifications for Licence) that choice is lost. The regulations now require an LA to find that an individual is not of good repute if he or she has been convicted of serious offences or has been repeatedly convicted of road transport offences. Strangely the new provision does not apply to limited liability companies as such, though a company could be held not to meet the requirement to be of good repute if one of its directors or transport managers was not of good repute.
ARGUMENT
The wording is also curious. "Serious offences" is in the plural. Does that mean that a person convicted of one "serious offence" does not lose his repute, while someone convicted of more than one does? That can hardly have been the intention of the legislators, but it is already an argument that has been used.
However, it is the second part of this particular amendment to the regulations that is more worrying, because it forces an LA to determine that an individual is not of good repute if he is "repeatedly" convicted of road transport offences. Does this mean that, say, a second overloading offence would cost an otherwise reputable operator his 0-licence?
This is not just academic. A PCV operator has already lost his 0-licence following repeated C&U convictions.
At a recent Manchester public inquiry, North Western Deputy Traffic Commissioner, Kenneth Birchall revoked the six-vehicle PCV licence held by John Battrick and Margaret Brown, trading as M&E Coaches of Accrington, and refused an application for a new licence by the associated M&E Private Hire. Convictions had been recorded against Battrick in May and June 1989 and in October and November 1990. Birchall said he had no alternative but to revoke the licence, as there were repeated convictions for road transport offences.
M&E Private Hire had sought a new eight-vehicle licence. Refusing the application, Birchall said that as Battrick was not of good repute he was debarred from operating public service vehicles. Battrick was a director of M&E Private Hire. Under the new regs, if a director or transport manager of a limited company is not of good repute, the company may not operate.
However, under the new provisions, the "operator" — whether a person, company or partnership, and/or their transport manager must effectively manage the operation. Where any of them ceases to be of good repute the licence holder will not he treated as failing to meet the professional competence requirement until the LA considers they have spent an unreasonable time in finding a replacement.
The financial requirement for new international 0-licences is for at least 3,000 European Currency Units (approx S:2,113) for each vehicle which is to be used under the licence, or 150 ECUs (E106) multiplied by the number of tonnes representing the aggregate maximum weights of such vehicles.
CONTINUITY
It seems that for this provision to apply to existing operators it would be necessary for there to be a break in the continuity of the licences held.
On the face of it, then, many operators will be losing their licences for relatively minor offences, and even sympathetic LAs will be powerless to help them.
Senior Traffic Commissioner Major-General John Carpenter certainly regards the regulations as "important, in that they give us stronger powers if we need to use them". But be stresses: "None of us will act unnecessarily. We understand that mistakes can be made and then it is up to us to make a decision."
Because the description "repeatedly" is so vague he is at pains to assure hauliers that LAs can still exercise discretion over whether to revoke 0-licences.