AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

El readfur prohibitions result in revocation

11th September 2008
Page 26
Page 26, 11th September 2008 — El readfur prohibitions result in revocation
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?

An undertaking given at public inquiry that vehicles would be inspected every four weeks had been breached.

AN OPERATOR that ignored undertakings given at a public inquiry has lost its 0-licence — and it is likely that further action will be taken against the company and its director.

At public inquiry, North-Eastern Traffic Commissioner Tom Macartney revoked the licence held by Crook. Co Durham-based EVT Contractors, adding that he would issue a written decision on whether to disqualify the company and sole director John Wright from holding an 0-licence.

The company held a licence for four vehicles and four trailers. It had appeared at a previous public inquiry in November 2007 when the licence was cut to two vehicles for two weeks.

Vehicle examiner Gordon Whittaker said that at a maintenance investigation in April this year, the company was apparently operating one vehicle and trailer. That vehicle, which was in a satisfactory condition, was not specified on the licence. Few defects were shown on the inspection records and a number were not satisfactorily completed.

Wright admitted that an undertaking given at the previous public inquiry that drivers would receive training had not been fulfilled, and an undertaking that vehicles would be inspected every four weeks had been breached. In the last five years, there had been nine prohibitions and six refusals to remove prohibitions — and since the last public inquiry, one immediate and two delayed prohibitions had been issued. When a trailer given an Smarked prohibition for a defective tyre was produced for clearance, a variation and refusal notice was issued because three of the 10 wheelnuts were loose.

Traffic examiner Ray Jones said two specified vehicles had been removed from the licence in February. Tachograph charts showed that a vehicle had been used while under a prohibition notice. Wright refused to produce PAYE records for the drivers, saying the drivers were employed by another company of which he was a director. However, Companies House records showed that Wright was only a director of EVT.

Analysis of the tachograph charts revealed a substantial number of drivers' hours offences and instances of the falsification of tachograph records. Jones detailed vehicles constantly coming on and off the company's licence. He said there were still no vehicles specified on the licence.

In July, an artic belonging to the company loaded with scrap metal but not displaying an 0-licence disc was stopped by the police. The driver, Fred Teesdale, said he was a full-time employee of EVT. Both tractor and semi-trailer were given roadworthiness prohibitions. The vehicle had been acquired by the company in March and had travelled 23.332km since then. He had tried to contact Wright about the matter without success.

Revoking the licence with immediate effect, the TC said there had been some -pretty dreadful" prohibitions. He warned that if Wright put any vehicles on the road from then on, they would be impounded.