British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) >> Kevin King & Sons Transport KD Plant and Haulage Ltd (Transport - Traffic Commissioner and DoE (NI) Appeals - Repute & Fitness) [2024] UKUT 47 (AAC) (8 February 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2024/47.html
Cite as: [2024] UKUT 47 (AAC)
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Kevin King & Sons Transport KD Plant and Haulage Limited () [2024] UKUT 47 (AAC). (8 February 2024)
The First Appellant held a standard operator's licence. He suffered a serious road accident and was unable to work for some months. During the earlier part of his incapacity his tachograph card was used by another driver employed by him to breach drivers' hours and tachograph rules. The First Appellant contended he was unaware of the double-carding, while the driver contended that he had been instructed by the First Appellant to use his card. This came to the notice of the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) several months later as a result of an investigation leading to the downloading of tachograph data. Shortly before that, the First Appellant had incorporated the Second Appellant, of which he was originally the sole director. After the DVSA visit he resigned as a director, his partner was appointed and she applied for a standard licence without disclosing his connection with the company. The Traffic Commissioner found that the First Appellant knew of the double-carding and instructed the driver to use his card and that both the First Appellant and his partner had sought to mislead the OTC about his involvement with the company and later had made misleading statements. Both licences were revoked and the First Appellant and his partner were disqualified for a year. The Traffic Commissioner's approach to the evidence and his findings of fact were challenged and his decision was said to be disproportionate. The Upper Tribunal concluded that the decision was not plainly wrong.
A HTML version of this file is not available click here or view below the pdf version : [2024] UKUT 47 (AAC).