St Leonards-on-Sea based Catherine Barcroft was disqualified from holding or obtaining a PSV O-Licence for one year after her three-vehicle international licence was revoked by Deputy Traffic Commissioner (DTC) John Baker when he held that she was a “front” for Peter Warren, who was actually running the business.
The DTC also disqualified her Transport Manager (TM) John Crosbie-Barcroft from acting as TM indefinitely. He revoked his vocational driving licence, disqualifying him from holding such a licence for a year. The DTC also revoked Mr Warren’s vocational licence and disqualified him from holding such a licence for four years.
Traffic Examiner (TE) Lance Cheetham said that three main issues of concern were the failure to produce tachograph records and other relevant documentation, the falsification of tachograph records, and a belief that it was Mr Warren who was operating the vehicles rather than Ms Barcroft.
Mr Warren had falsified tachograph records in the main by removing a chart from the tachograph and then winding the clock forward. On other occasions, he had cut the power to the battery and the tachograph unit.
Mr Warren had been prosecuted for six offences and had accepted ten offences taken into consideration. Mr Crosbie-Barcroft had been prosecuted for two offences of failing to make records when required.
When interviewed, Mr Warren had said that he was the owner of the business, fuel receipts were in his name, and he held himself out as the owner on social media and in a news report in a local paper.
Ms Barcroft said that Mr Warren was her partner. He looked after the maintenance of the vehicles but she did the finance. She did not know about the missing tachograph charts.
Mr Warren said that he had set up the business 17 years ago. He had said he was the owner because it was "his baby" and he liked to think he was the owner which was not the case. He had a farm and a pension so did not take any income from the business.
Making the revocation and disqualification orders, the DTC said that he concluded that Mr Warren was for all intents and purposes the operator. He carried out a series of frauds in relation to tachograph records over a period of months and worsened matters by initially putting forward different false explanations to the TE. Even when he admitted the offences he attempted to minimise the seriousness by claiming that no passengers were on board.
He believed that Ms Barcroft was unaware of the extent of the fraud carried out by Mr Warren and the TM but that highlighted a further issue. If she was the operator she should have made it her business to check that the transport arrangements were as they should be. The absence of previous regulatory action was negated by the fact that Mr Warren has been the operator when he did not have a licence.
