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 
TC decides finance house knew operator had no licence
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A FINANCE company which leased a vehicle to a scaffolding firm despite knowing it had no 0-licence has failed in its bid to have the vehicle returned.
South Eastern & MetropolitanTraffic Commissioner Christopher Heaps concluded that the company, finance firm HFGL, knew that the customer using the vehicle did not have an 0-licence at the lime it was supplied.
The TC said the vehicle was being used by Wandsworth-based UK Performance Scaffolding when it was impounded at Mitcham in May.The driver's licence had expired, the vehicle was overloaded by 33% and it was given an S-marked prohibition for five defects HFGL sought its return on the basis that it owned the vehicle and had supplied it to UK Performance Scaffolding under a finance lease agreement. A letter from A Bailey & Sons (Road Haulage Contractors) dated 9 May 2003 stated that the company had authorised UK Performance Scaffolding to run the vehicle under its 0-licence until the latter's interim licence became available.
An application for an 0-licence by UK Performance Scaffolding was submitted in June 2004 but withdrawn in August 2004. In the same month the company was prosecuted for operating without an 0-licence, being fined .E740 with £85 costs.
The finance leasing agreement was completed on 13 May 2003 and the TC considered that at that time or shortly thereafter HFGL knew that UK Performance Scaffolding did not have an 0-licence because Bailey's letter dated 9 May 2003 stated that it did not even have an interim licence.
The TC concluded there were no grounds for returning the vehicle, adding that HFGL was clearly aware of the legislation relating to 0-licences, which were personal to each operator and could not be transferred to, or used by, another operator.