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
157
158
159
160 
Revocation and impounding case to be heard by new TC
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
coipii A Rochdale-based operator
and its associated vehicle hire firm have won a partial appeal against the loss of its licence and the impounding of two trucks and trailers. The Transport Tribunal directed that the case involving CPT & Sons Transport UK and CPT Commercials (Stockport) be reheard by a different Traffic Commissioner.
The North Western TC Beverely Bell had initially revoked CPT & Sons' Operators Licence in July 2002, on the grounds that the company no longer had a transport manager era valid maintenance contract and its financial standing was in issue. Notification was sent to director Christine Ford at the company's two addresses in Rochdale.
In January of this year, five vehicles and five trailers were impounded by the then Vehicle Inspectorate. A man gMng his name as Peter Ford was challenged about their unauthorised use and he pointed to a vehicle displaying an 0-licence disc issued to CPT Transport. When told that licence had been revoked, Ford denied any knowledge.
Applications for the return of three trucks and trailers by finance companies were successful. However, the North Western Deputy TC Patrick Mulvenna refused to return the rest. The application for their return was signed by Peter Ford. The DTC was told that CPT Commercials, which was represented by Boris Mont (who used the name Peter Ford as an alias) and Christine Ford, had gone into liquidation and that the vehicles were owned by Direct Transport UK. As a consequence, he held that the apphcation must fail.
Before the Tribunal, Mont said that CPT Transport had moved its operating centre to Water Street in Stockport, and that its correspondence address had changed to Pavilion Close in Rochdale. He asserted that the Traffic Area must have been aware of the latter address as that was where the company's Community Authorisations had been sent The Tribunal said that the reality was that Mot and Ford were the only claimants for the vehicles, but they rejected arguments that any application by them would be out of time. They said they would be slow to accept any of Mord's assertions but they were troubled by the apparent failu re to notify CPT Transport of the possibility of revocation at either its Pavilion Close or Water Street addresses, of which it seemed the Traffic Area was aware.
However, since CPT Transport's licence covered only two vehicles and two trailers, it seemed that not all the impounded vehicles and trailers could have been covered by that licence.