The disqualification and revocation was upheld after TC Kevin Rooney found that Tracy Noddings had lost her good repute following the misuse of a licence disc
Stockton-on-Tees-based Tracy Noddings has lost her appeal against the revocation of her restricted PSV O-Licence and indefinite disqualification from holding a PSV O-Licence after using someone else’s licence disc by Traffic Commissioner (TC) Kevin Rooney.
The TC also took account of extensive shortcomings in vehicle maintenance by Mrs Noddings, trading as Noddys, of Stockton-on-Tees, who held a two-vehicle licence.
Making the revocation and disqualification orders, the TC said that Mrs Noddings borrowed a licence disc from another operator to extend her business. As the holder of a restricted PSV licence for nine years, he had no doubt that Mrs Noddings knew that was unlawful.
She had put commercial gain ahead of compliance. In operating three vehicles with a restricted licence, Mrs Noddings had gained a commercial advantage over competitors.
It was also notable that the shortcomings found by the VE would not be expected to arise should a qualified competent transport manager be employed. Mrs Noddings had put the safety of her passengers and other road users in jeopardy. [routeone/court report/5 October 2016].
In her written grounds of appeal, Mrs Nodding said that she had not been aware that she was doing anything wrong in using a vehicle licensed to a different operator in the course of her business.
She was not mechanically minded and so had relied upon a garage and it was not her fault if the garage staff had not done their job correctly. Although the brake pads on one vehicle had been worn there had been no braking deficiency resulting from it and such had been confirmed by testing.
Although it was said that there were defects with respect to another vehicle, such contentions amounted to ‘a blatant lie’, so the TC had based his decision upon false information.
The VE had refused to look through all of the paperwork she had provided yet had subsequently suggested that her paperwork, concerning maintenance issues, was incomplete. The DVSA and in particular the VE had specifically targeted her.
Dismissing the appeal, the Upper Tribunal said that there was no doubt that the various concerns which the TC had in mind when he made his decision were serious ones.
She must have known very well that she was entitled to use only two vehicles under her licence, such a restriction being clear, unambiguous and straightforward. Had she sought to incorporate a third vehicle in her business through proper channels, she would have had to apply for a standard national licence which would, among other things, have required her to use a qualified transport manager.
They saw no reason to think that the VE or anyone else involved in the investigation would wish to tell any lies regarding the condition of any vehicle, nor would wish to ignore paperwork provided and then disingenuously assert that paperwork concerning the maintenance systems was missing.
Ultimately, as the proprietor of the business the responsibility for ensuring that properly maintained vehicles were used rested with her. The TC had concluded that Mrs Noddings had lost her good repute, that her licence ought to be revoked and that disqualification was appropriate. Indeed, it would have been surprising had any other outcome been reached.
