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 
Tribunal confirms nationwide ban
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Rainham-based Brooks Transport's appeal against the revocation of its Operator's Licence and disqualification from holding or obtaining a licence in any Traffic Area has been dismissed by the Transport Tribunal.
In addition Alan Brooks, who declined to give evidence at the public inquiry, was ordered to pay £750 costs.
Brooks held a national licence for four vehicles and four trailers. He had denied any connection with a firm called H Mapplebeck & Sons, but a company search indicated that he was both a director and company secretary. The company held an international licence but no vehicles were specified on it. Three vehicles were travelling regularly to the Continent without displaying 0-licence discs, the Tribunal heard, and the driver of one said that hia employer was Mapplebeck. However, the registered keeper of that vehicle turned out to be Brooks Transport.
The two other vehicles were registered in the name of Paul Giles, who trades as PKG Haulage. One driver claimed he was employed by Giles but produced a community authorisation in the name of Mapplebeck.
Giles denied owning the vehicle or employing the driver, but admitted he had agreed to insure it for Brooks in return for a rent-free period at the operating centre. Giles claimed the signature on the DVLA rag istration form was not his and denied ever carrying out work for Tibbet & Britten, although Brooks allegedly had, and had received payment, according to the company For Brooks, Jim Duckworth argued that proper notices had not been given of the case that Brooks had to meet. But the Tribunal disagreed, saying they did not think that Brooks could be in any doubt about the position. They considered that the issues had been clear from the very beginning.
Ordering Brooks to pay costs, the Tribunal said: "We think the conduct of the appellant has been one of repudiation of the regulatory regime and that in the circumstances the making and pursuing of an appeal was unreasonable."