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 
Poor communication Leads to Licence Loss
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BOREHAM WOOD-BASED MULROY Construction has lost its appeal against the revocation of its two-vehicle restricted licence after it failed to respond promptly to correspondence from Vasa and the Eastern Traffic Area. Letters asking for comments following an unsatisfactory maintenance investigation were not replied to, In March, the Traffic Area wrote to say it had received information that the firm was not contactable at its correspondence address. This evoked a response from plant manager Tony Gallagher saying that it had moved to London. The company was then written to advising it that as it had moved to the South Eastern 8./. Metropolitan Traffic Area (SEMTA), it was necessary to seek a new licence. No response was received and, as a result, the licence was revoked.
Gallagher told the Transport Tribunal that while the office and main yard had moved to London, the vehicles continued to operate from Borehamwood.
A decision had been taken to exhaust all the materials there before the vehicles moved to London at the end of July. At that stage, a new 0-licence in SEMTA would be required and an application had already been lodged.
Dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal said that given the background it was unsurprising that the firm's licence had been revoked. However, it was satisfied that the failings were not wilful, but more likely due to a lack of appreciation of the need to keep the TC informed of the change in circumstances. It hoped the matter would not have an adverse effect on the company's new application.