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 
I CASE TWO
Page 23
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TribunaL uphoLds revocation decision
THE REVOCATION of the 0-licence held by Earl's Croomebased William Ball, trading as !h evern Valley Transport, and his isqualification from holding an -licence for three months has een upheld by the Transport 'hunal on appeal. Ball held licence for four vehicles.
The West Midlands Traffic omrnissioner Nick Jones posed the revocation and isqualification orders because of he unauthorised use of an perating centre, breaches of the tachograph rules and because Ball had lied to traffic examiners. The TC was told that in November 2007, a vehicle driven by Ball was stopped in a check. No 0-licence disc was on display, and the vehicle was taxed as a recovery vehicle. Ball, who produced tacho records that had the centrefields completed, maintained he was using the vehicle for private purposes.
He was uncooperative and difficult. Enquiries revealed that Ball had a plant hire and sales business at Peterstow and did haulage for PIC Construction. He was the registered keeper of the vehicle and the sole director of Adobe Enterprises. Despite requests, no further tachograph charts were produced.
Ball said that there were two Adobe companies, one in Belize and the other in Cardiff, although the latter had never traded.
The Belize company traded in "grey imports': Four vehicles had been imported that way, including the recovery vehicle, which was being operated by the Belize company.
In his appeal, Ball maintained he was not responsible as the vehicle's operator. As the driver, he could only speak for himself and not Adobe. To suspend his 0-licence, which had nothing to do with the firm, was over the top.
The Tribunal said Ball had not produced any evidence that he was not the operator, that the vehicle was a recovery vehicle, and that its use on that day did not require an 0-licence.