The decision to revoke the O-licence of a removals company that refused to attend a public inquiry (PI) because of work agreements has been upheld by the Upper Tribunal.
Timothy Robinson, trading as Robinson’s Removals, was banned from operating HGVs by Eastern deputy traffic commissioner (DTC) Marcia Davies in December last year, after it failed to attend a hearing when its request for an adjournment was denied. Transport manager Stuart Robinson also lost his repute and was disqualified indefinitely.
It was called to a PI after failing to produce a maintenance contract or PMI sheets during a DVSA investigation. Robinson relied on his memory instead of using a written driver defect reporting system, and did not have a forward planning system in place.
The company’s vehicle also had a poor annual test pass rate and 75% of test results over five years were fails, compared to a national average of 14%. Fixed penalty notices had also been incurred for overloading, incorrect use of the mode switch and “dangerous use”.
Upon receiving the PI call-up letter, Stuart Robinson and director Timothy Robinson declined to attend. A letter was sent to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC), stating: “Owing to the fact that the pre Christmas period is very busy and profitable I am unable to attend the inquiry on that date”.
When the adjournment request was declined, Stuart Robinson then claimed it could not get out of prior work agreements, and said he didn’t regard “working for money as a commercial advantage”.
During the PI, for which the operator was absent, the DTC determined that the request for an adjournment was a “deliberate snub” and a device to postpone the impact of adverse findings against the operator. She said pre-booked work was not a sufficient reason to delay the hearing.
The DTC found that Robinson’s Removals had not demonstrated financial standing, had not inspected its vehicles every six weeks, and had breached a condition of its O-licence that said the TC should be notified of any maintenance changes. It had also broken driver’s hours rules.
Appealing the decision, Stuart Robinson claimed that the DVSA evidence was “full of half truths” and said the two PG9s presented as evidence were for trivial defects. He also claimed that the vehicle in question had been sold.
Upholding the DTC’s decision, judge Jacqueline Beech said refuse the request for an adjournment had been “plainly right” as the company made no attempt to provide its own evidence of its compliance ahead of the hearing.
In a written decision, she said the company had made “a cynical and deliberate attempt to delay the date of the public inquiry”.
“Further, Mr Robinson’s correspondence demonstrates an arrogant and wilful disregard of the functions of the regulatory system, added judge Beech.
Summing up: The Upper Tribunal found the operator had displayed “an attitude that is not acceptable in a regulated industry which is largely based on trust”.
- This article appeared in the 28 May print edition of Commercial Motor. Why not subscribe today?
Related used vehicles for sale
