AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

I CASE FOUR

11th June 2009, Page 24
11th June 2009
Page 24
Page 24, 11th June 2009 — I CASE FOUR
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords :

Maintenance lapse doesn't cost Licence

AN OWNER-DRIVER who failed to comply with "any aspect of 0-licensing" has had his licence cut from two vehicles to one after letting his maintenance procedures lapse.

Ivan Knox of Rochdale had been called before the NorthWestern Traffic Commissioner Beverley Bell.

Vehicle examiner Darren Robinson said Knox had one vehicle and maintenance was contracted out. He carried out a maintenance investigation in January and found no maintenance records, forward planner, maintenance contract or driver defect reporting system.

An immediate prohibition was issued to the vehicle at the roadside in May 2008. When submitted for clearance, a delayed prohibition was issued.

The TC said it appeared that Knox had "completely failed" to comply with any aspects of 0-licensing.

Robinson said Knox had since adopted a drivers' nil defect reporting system and there was now a wall planner. He had taken advice to have his vehicle inspected by the contractor the day after his visit.

ICnox produced invoices showing he had spent il.000 on the vehicle since the vehicle examiner's visit. He said he had "lost heart and interest" during a period when he had had some health problems. He had not stopped maintaining his vehicle but did not keep records.

In reply to the TC, Knox said he had obtained his CPC in 1982. He admitted he had not been on any courses to keep up to date, adding that he had planned to retire this year but the recession had prevented that.

Cutting the licence, the TC said she took account of Knox's health problems.