News

A haulier who produced a false maintenance contract in order to obtain his licence and false letters during a public inquiry has had his licence revoked and been disqualified from holding an O-licence for two years. Adrian O'Malley, trading as O'Malley Transport of (to follow) with a licence for four vehicles and one trailer, had been called before the South Eastern & Metropolitan Deputy Traffic Commissioner, Miles Dorrington.

He was also one of two directors of O'Malley Haulage, and  the DTC gave notice that he was considering revoking that company's licence for seven vehicles and one trailer. He gave the company seven days in which to request a public inquiry. Detective Inspector Rose of the Metropolitan Police said that the maintenance contract submitted was false because the address on the contract was not one from which maintenance could be undertaken.

He believed the contractor, Mr Kelly, was a fictitious character, because 20 people he interviewed under caution had not met Kelly or spoken to him. During the course of Crown Court proceedings against two of O' Malley's associates, John Plummeridge and Philip Cameron, no attempt was made by either defendant to call Kelly as a witness in support of the defence case.

DI Rose said that a letter apparently from Adrian O'Malley in December 2005 bore an incorrect postcode and a signature from Adrian O'Malley that he believed was forged. He conceded that there was no evidence O'Malley knew anything about  the letter of December 2005 and that, on the face of it, the maintenance agreement appeared to be a genuine document and that there was no evidence to show O'Malley knew it was false.

O'Malley said he had believed the maintenance contract was genuine. Kelly was not fictitious because he and others had met him on a few occasions. However, due to Kelly's lack of professionalism and unreliability, as he rarely attended the operating centre, it was decided not to use him again.  O'Malley's transport manager, his father, Thomas, said that he never saw the maintenance contract and that he had met Kelly on one occasion in 2004. The DTC said that while someone might have visited the O'Malleys calling themselves Kelly, that person was not Kelly.

He did not find that Adrian O'Malley was a credible witness. The dates on the application form and the maintenance contract did not match - the date on the contract being two days later. He did not accept that O'Malley dispensed with the services of Kelly as he maintained he did, or even at all, because he did not accept that the copy letters of 13 and 17 January 2005 bearing his signature were copies of genuine letters that had been sent. He considered that both letters were created at dates later than those shown on each letter. Neither did he accept that O'Malley had never seen the December 2005 letter.

O'Malley knew the doucments were false

The DTC considered O'Malley knew that maintenance contract and letters were false and that his misconduct went to the very heart of the O-licensing system.