Appeal tribunal unconvinced by operator’s arguments

An Ilford operator whose licence application was refused after a traffic commissioner found that its director was incapable of providing a straight answer, has had its appeal dismissed.

Samoor Services and sole director Sam Samoor were told by the transport tribunal that it was not persuaded by its arguments and that the TC was entitled to draw adverse findings from the way it had prepared for two earlier hearings.

The operator had applied for a restricted licence but the TC called it to attend a public inquiry first, to determine its fitness to hold a licence and also because of its previous history.

Samoor had been director of Sam 24/7 Recovery, which had its licence revoked after the TC found he had allowed his sole trader licence to be used by the limited company.

He had also been operating out of an un authorised operating centre for nearly a year, operated two trailers when the licence only authorised one and had failed to comply with tachograph regulatory requirements.

The licence application for Samoor Services was refused, on the grounds that he had failed to prepare and brought incorrect paperwork to a second hearing despite an adjournment being given at the first and assurances by him he would bring the correct case papers.

He had also been disruptive and argumentative.

The TC said Samoor had also changed his evidence in relation to where the correct case papers were; first suggesting they had been wrongly retained by his lawyer and then claiming “a friend” had them.

The TC concluded that the director had not improved his approach to compliance since the first PI and that he could not be trusted.

“Mr Samoor was incapable of giving me a straight answer to a straight question, getting it right first time,” she said.

The operator appealed this decision, saying that he wanted to prove he could run a compliant business. Samoor claimed he had had done everything asked of him by the traffic commissioner and his vehicles were in perfect condition with a 100% MOT pass rate.

But the tribunal said they were not persuaded: “The appellant argues that he has complied with all requirements imposed by traffic commissioners but that contradicts the present commissioner’s findings, and the correctness of those findings is not seriously disputed,” it said.