AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Fiery operator told to cool it for five years

9th February 2006
Page 31
Page 31, 9th February 2006 — Fiery operator told to cool it for five years
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

A Cambridgeshire operator who set fire to a pile of tachograph recc in front of a traffic examiner has been taken off the road.

EASTERN TRAFFIC Commissioner Geoffrey Simms has confirmed his decision to disqualify Ely. Cambs-based operator Kevin _laggard from holding or obtaining an 0-licence for five years.

Jaggard and his business partner Ross Taylor had been disqualified when neither of them turned up at a public inquiry in Cambridge before Christmas. Taylor was disqualified for two years.

The licence in the name of their firm. TC Transport,was revoked, as was the licence held by Logistic Solutions (Cambs) of which the two men were directors. This followed a series of problems with maintenance, hours and tachograph offences —including the destruction of tachograph records.

At the original inquiry, traffic examiner Bernadette Williamson told the TC that she had requested the production of tachograph records at the firm's site. She was taken outside where a large pile of tachograph records were on fire: she believed the fire had been started by Jaggard. She alleged Jaggard had said: "There's your documents!" as he threw another document on to the fire.Then he proclaimed:"I am sick to death of transport."

Taylor, she added. had appeared shocked and surprised, telling his partner that this was not the right manner in which to deal with her request.

Jaggard appealed against the disqualification and the Transport liibunal directed the TC to reconsider his decision on the grounds that he had not given reasons for drawing a distinction between the orders made against the two men.

When the case came before the TC again, Jaggard asked why he had been given a longer period of disqualification than Taylor, and maintained that both partners were equally responsible. He claimed the fire was not started by him but on Taylor's orders and that it was already alight by the time they went outdoors.

Confirming his decision, the TC said Taylor had written to inform him that he neither suggested nor instructed that Jaggard destroy the tachograph charts.

Destruction of evidence the TC preferred the trail ic examiner's version of events. On the balance of probabilities.

Jaggard was either directly or indirectly responsible for the destruction of the tachograph records. Those actions obstructed a traffic examiner in the course of her duty. The most likely purpose was to conceal incriminating evidence from her.

There were no grounds for suggesting that Taylor was either complicit in or accepting of his partner's actions. In all the matters that ultimately led to the revocation of the licences, it was the conduct of the partner responsible for the destruction of the tachograph records that distinguished between their culpability..

Tags

Organisations: TRAFFIC
Locations: Cambs, Cambridge

comments powered by Disqus