1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219 
Tribunal allows appeal against 'harsh decision
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• An appeal by Southern Linen Services Ltd, Eastbourne, against a decision, in January, by the South Eastern deputy LA was allowed by the Transport Tribunal on Tuesday. At a public inquiry, Mr G. C. Mercer, the deputy LA, had reduced the company's existing licence for nine vehicles by one and refused an application for two additional vehicles. The Transport Tribunal, in allowing the appeal, reduced the existing licence by one vehicle for six months and allowed the application for two extra vehicles.
For the appellants, Mr Konrad Schiemann told the Tribunal that although Southern Linen Services had been issued with three GV9s in 1970 and there had been an inspection by a vehicle examiner of vehicles and premises, which had not been satisfactory, in the same year, no action had been taken by the LA at that time. The 0 licence had been issued then, however.
During the following year, the company had realized without prompting that its transport arrangements were still not satisfactory and had set in train the improvement of its maintenance facilities.
It had decided to enlarge its workshop and raise the roof so that all the vehicles could be dealt with under cover, to apply for extra vehicles so that spare vehicles would be available to enable those due for maintenance to be serviced, and to improve the quality of the maintenance staff.
When the company received notice of the public inquiry in October, it had asked the vehicle examiner to inspect its new arrangements and these had been found to be satisfactory although the vehicle examiner had given evidence to this effect at the public enquiry. Mr Mercer had said that he did not consider that the new mechanic could look after 11 vehicles and had taken action which had had the effect of reducing the company's fleet by three vehicles.
Mr Schiemann submitted that the decision was a harsh one and asked that the appeal be allowed.
An appeal by Mr V. Davies, trading as Jubilee Transport, against a decision by the West Midland LA was deferred till the operator's licence was produced to the Tribunal. His licence had been reduced by one vehicle.
Mr Davies had told the Tribunal that a GV9 which had led to the public inquiry was issued against a vehicle which was not his. Although his licence was for two vehicles he operated only one. He was offered another vehicle by Mr D. J. Hayhurst of Tamworth. This vehicle had not been used for three months and was stored in a yard behind the DoE testing station at Tarnworth. As Mr Davies had • been asked by a vehicle examiner to produce his maintenance records for inspection he combined the collection of the vehicle with a visit to the testing station with his records.
When he arrived, the vehicle examiner had immediately put a GV9 on the vehicle which he was using despite protestations that it was not his.
Sir Wilfred Morton, a member of the Tribunal, asked him if his appeal were allowed where he would maintain the two vehicles. Mr Davies told him that he was allowed to garage the vehicle he had at present and maintain it using the facilities of a company for which he was providing transport.
Mr G. D. Squibb, QC, president of the Tribunal, said that he had not had a copy of the operator's licence and Mr Davies said that the original licence was still with the West Midland LA.
The Tribunal deferred its decision till a copy of the licence was obtained_