AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Cleared of aiding unlicensed use

9th March 2000, Page 18
9th March 2000
Page 18
Page 18, 9th March 2000 — Cleared of aiding unlicensed use
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A Worcestershire company, whose 0-licence was revoked in February 1999, has been cleared of aiding and abetting an unlicensed operator to use its vehicles without the authority of an 0-licence.

Sharp denied five offences of unauthorised use, two offences of using an °licence identity disc with intent to deceive and one offence of using a dangerous vehicle: Prosecuting for the Vehicle Inspectorate, Beverley Bell said that the 0-licence held by Ivory Plant had been revoked on 15 February 1999. Three of the company's vehicles were seen in operation four days later, and two were seen on 19 March. Sharp, who was not the holder of an 0-licence, had admitted when interviewed that he had been operating the vehicles and employing the drivers on the days in question.

Traffic examiner Nicola Darby said she had interviewed Ivory Plant's company secretary, John Bruce, who said the vehicles had been hired to Sharp since 12 February and produced a copy of a hiring agreement signed by both himself and Sharp.

Sharp maintained that what he had said during interview was "a pack of lies". He said he had been employed by the company until the end of March and had said what he did out of a sense of loyalty. It had just been a way of keeping the vehicles running. He claimed the company had said it would pay any tines imposed on him.

Bruce said that after the company's licence was revoked he was approached by Sharp, who wanted to hire some of the vehicles as he had contacts for work of his own. The company had continued to employ him during March as it was short of fitters. The documentation proved it was not a "sham". It was a large company employing more than 150 people, and would not get involved in a sham.

In reply to John Nixon, for Sharp, Bruce denied he had been aware that Sharp did not hold an 0-licence. He agreed that since May 1997 the company had been convicted of 21 offences of using a prohibited vehicle, five offences of using an unauthorised operating centre. one offence of having no excise licence and one offence of unauthorised use, and that he personally had been convicted of depositing material other than soil on a farmer's field, for which he was fined £5,000.

Maintaining that the hire agreement was a sham and that Sharp had not been the 'user" of the vehicles, Nixon said that a company with a chequered history to say the least had "hung Sharp out to dry".

The magistrates refused to order that Sharp's defence costs be paid out of public funds,


comments powered by Disqus