A bid by Huddersfield-based David Croft for the return of a 33-seater vehicle, which was impounded on 27 April, has been rejected by Traffic Commissioner (TC) Tim Blackmore after David Croft failed to attend a Leeds Public Inquiry.
The TC said that his staff had received a telephone call the previous day from a Steven Croft saying that David Croft was not up to it and was not attending.
For DVSA, Stephen Thomas said that in 2014 two applications for a PSV O-Licence by Paramount Travel were refused on financial grounds.
A further application was made in 2017 with David Croft as a director and Transport Manager. That was also refused. Despite the lack of a licence, the company openly advertised excursions online.
On 27 April the coach was stopped by Traffic Examiner Tony Wood while carrying two passengers. It was on its way from Brighouse to Huddersfield to collect passengers for a trip to Scarborough on behalf of Paramount Travel.
No O-Licence disc was being displayed and enquiries revealed that there was no O-Licence in force. Ten tachograph records showed journeys by the coach varying in distance between 181 and 460km, all consistent with the provision of a coach service for the public.
David Davies, the sole Director of Paramount Travel, had been the registered keeper of the vehicle since 8 March 2018. A DVLA check on 3 June showed that Mr Davies was still the registered keeper. There was no evidence that Mr Croft was the owner of the vehicle apart from a leasing agreement which he suggested was invalid, said Mr Thomas.
The TC commented that that agreement was one that was more like one for a hire car, as it stated that Mr Croft would provide a back-up vehicle if the vehicle was in for repair.
Mr Thomas said that the agreement only asked for a driving licence, which would suggest that it was not for a commercial vehicle.
The TC said that the vehicle had clearly been lawfully impounded. On the question of ownership, there was no evidence of any money passing between the parties.
He harboured concerns that the leasing document had been produced in advance of the hearing to try and show ownership of the vehicle by Mr Croft.
He was not satisfied that Mr Croft was the owner. He had asked Mr Croft to provide evidence of the rental transactions, together with any evidence of the vehicle’s MoT, its insurance and of its purchase.
There had been no contact at all from Mr Croft.
On that basis he had not been presented with any evidence of ownership with the background of the linkages with the previous licence applications.
His staff had received a call from Mr Davies who asked that if the vehicle was returned who would be responsible for paying the storage costs.
