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 
Tribunal upholds Licence revocation
Page 24
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Scottish DTC's decision to revoke 0-licence and disqualify transport manager stands after appeal.
THE TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL has confirmed the revocation of the 20vehicle, 204railer 0-licence held by Aberdeen-based Oakmist.
The company has been disqualified from holding an 0-licence in any Traffic Area indefinitely; former director and transport manager George Cran has been disqualified for two years.
Richard McFarlane. the Scottish Deputy Traffic Commissioner, made the revocation and disqualification orders after concluding that the firm could only be viewed as a front for the disqualified haulier Ian Hendry Maintenance was carried out by Norwood Truck & Van, and staff of the maintenance contractors said vehicles were usually booked in by Hendry and payment for the work done was made by Norwood Transport: Hendry was a signatory on Oakrnist cheques, while the sole shareholder in Oakmist was the company secretary, Hendry's son, David.
The trailers were owned by Norwood, and since Norwood had accounts with several fuel and card firms, and as Oakmist had experienced difficulty in obtaining accounts, fuel, goods and services were paid for on the Norwood accounts. Norwood would then invoice Oakmist in respect of those payments.
Ian Hendry, through Norwood, provided Oakmist with 90% of its work (Firm was a front for disqualified haulier', CM 29 May).
The Tribunal said it was satisfied that the DTC's decision that Oakmist was a 'front' for Hendry couldn't be criticised.
The evidence showed that Hendry and Norwood were inextricably intertwined with Oakmist, and that there could be no doubt that Cran allowed his CPC and his name to be used to obtain an 0-licence in such a way that there was no obvious connection with Hendry. Oakmist was nothing more than a sham company, and its 0-licence was obtained on a false premise. Such deception struck right at the heart of the regulatory system and could not be excused or ignored. Therefore, it was inevitable that revocation of the licence would follow.
Turning to Cran, the Tribunal said it was almost inevitable that there would be a finding of loss of repute after discovering he had allowed his CPC and his name to be used by a person who was disqualified indefinitely from holding or obtaining an 0-licence.
His conduct allowed Ian Hendry to circumvent the disqualification order that was imposed upon him by establishing Oakmist, through which he was then able to continue operating goods vehicles through the device of Norwood carrying out the role of a freight forwarder.