Maurice Dale, who was disqualified indefinitely from acting as a Transport Manager (TM) when the one-vehicle international licence held by Bolton-based Michael Whitfield was revoked by Traffic Commissioner (TC) Simon Evans, has lost his appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
On 10 August 2017, Vehicle Examiner (VE) Elliott conducted an unannounced maintenance investigation as a result of Mr Whitfield failing to attend a new operator seminar on two invited occasions.
Upon attendance at Mr Whitfield’s operating centre, which was Mr Dale’s address, VE Elliott discovered that Mr Whitfield did not use the operating centre to park the authorised vehicle. He located the vehicle parked on the driveway of Mr Whitfield’s home address.
At the Public Inquiry before the TC, Mr Whitfield attended; Mr Dale did not. Mr Whitfield stated that he had not seen Mr Dale for about three months having told him that he would not continue working for him anymore.
Mr Dale was a taxi operator and he had suggested to Mr Whitfield that he should work “alongside” Mr Dale. It seemed like a good idea, so he invested in a minibus. However, it transpired that he did not like the kind of work Mr Dale was providing, for example, airport pickups at 0300hrs and 0400hrs for £30 or £40. The work was not economically viable [routeone/Court Report/31 January].
Dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal said that in Mr Dale’s grounds of appeal he said that: “Mr Whitfield had asked if he could put my name as TM while he did the necessary paperwork filling in his own application. After that, he had no correspondence with Mr Whitfield. He had not seen or heard from Mr Whitfield since August 2017.”
This was a blatant case of someone putting themselves forward as a TM in name only and it was irrelevant who suggested that course of action.
As a qualified TM, Mr Dale should have known that to either suggest or agree that he complete a TM1 form indicating that he was to spend three hours a week as Mr Whitfield’s TM and that he had a contract to that effect, was an action that struck at the heart of the licensing system.
The fact that Mr Dale failed to appreciate the significance of his own actions demonstrated that he was not fit to provide transport management functions to operators and that his good repute was lost.
It follows that the Tribunal is satisfied that the TC’s approach to the evidence in this case is beyond criticism.
Mr Dale’s nomination as TM for Mr Whitfield enabled Mr Whitfield to operate the vehicle without complying with any of the undertakings and statements of intent attached to the licence.
They did not accept Mr Dale’s assertion that he was not aware that Mr Whitfield was even operating his vehicle which contradicts the evidence of Mr Whitfield that he was undertaking work for Mr Dale who was receiving a commission from him in consideration for providing him with that work.
