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
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200 
Egg firm lost its repute for running without a licence
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Claiming ignorance of the 0-licence regs after a VOSA warning failed to preserve an operator's repute — or his licence...
AN OPERATOR that repeatedly claimed ignorance of the regulations has had its 0-licence application refused. Euro Eggs of Leyton, East London had previously had a vehicle impounded for operating without authority The company applied for a new two-vehicle licence before South Eastern 8z Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner Christopher Heaps at an Eastbourne public inquiry The 'IC noted that it had operated a vehicle without licence authority in November 2004; one of its vehicles had been impounded in February and a traffic examiner had stated that, when interviewed, director Mohammed Jiwan had admitted that he was aware the company needed an 0-licence.
Jiwan made no application for the return of the impounded vehicle.
The TC referred to evidence of another Euro Eggs vehicle being stopped while displaying an 0-licence identity disc belonging to a different vehicle which was authorised on a licence held by Deith Leisure.
Jiwan said he had started the business nine years ago. He had been unaware of the significance of the 0-licensing system even after the vehicle was stopped last November by VOSA. He denied that he had been warned by VOSA about the need for a licence following a previous incident. He claimed that he had remained unaware of the need for a licence even after the vehicle displaying another vehicle's disc had been stopped in January.
He could not remember why he had admitted to knowledge of the 0-licensing system when he was interviewed in February.
Essential deliveries
In reply to the TC, Jiwan admitted he had been told by VOSA last November that HGVs must not be used without licence authority. He said he had continued to do so because he had no choice and had to make deliveries.
Holding that the company was unfit to hold a licence, the TC said even if he gave Jiwan the benefit of the doubt that he was unaware of the need for an 0-licence in November 2004, he considered that he had been aware of the need when the vehicle was stopped in January and the other vehicle was impounded in February Heaps remarked that when Jiwan was interviewed in February he had admitted such knowledge. He took account of the view of the Transport Tribunal that the operation of vehicles without authority even on one occasion might lead to a loss of repute. He considered that the company's conduct was sufficiently serious to justify such a finding. •