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 
Appeal by Soton haulier on Tribunal penalty
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• E. J. Hamilton, removals and haulage contractors of Southampton, intend to appeal against a judgment of the Transport Tribunal (CM June 8) curtailing their licence by two vehicles for 14 days.
The South Eastern deputy Licensing Authority had curtailed the company's licence by reducing the number of licensed vehicles from five to two for 14 days and deleting a specified vehicle for the same 14 days, from February Ito 15 1973.
One of the incidents which led to the decision occurred on June 15 1972 — a vehicle on rental for 24 hours from Avis Truck Rental Ltd had a GV9 placed on it when the nearside rear wheels became detached and crashed through a shop window. Mr Hamilton told the Tribunal that the vehicle had been examined and passed the DoE test at Croydon test centre two days before the incident. He said later that it had been prepared for the test by a Kenning Motor Group company and the day following the test it had been delivered to him from London by Avis. His own driver was at the wheel when the incident happened.
Mr Hamilton told CM that when the prohibition was issued the vehicle was back :n Avis hands and the prohibition notice had been served on Avis — but that Hamilton's operator's licence number had Yen quoted.
He said that DoE examiners had taken he 0-licence number from a journey record ;heet that his driver had left in the vehicle bllowing the incident. Mr Hamilton iaimed that Avis had accepted resronsibility for the damage, but Mr E. Perry, he Avis insurance manager in London, told CM this week that the claim had been passed to Hamilton's third party insurers.
Mr Hamilton had previously told CM that he was initiating a civil action against Avis under the Sale of Goods Act 1893 Section 14(1). He was also considering similar action against Wadham Stringer Ltd, of Southampton, in respect of repairs which they carried out on another vehicle which, he said, was subsequently found to be unserviceable. The driver of the vehicle when delivering a load to the West Country had reported a steering defect by telephone. Hamilton arranged for his load to be transhipped at Wincanton and for the empty vehicle to return to Southampton. On this return journey, DoE examiners stopped the vehicle and imposed a 0V9 specifying 11 defects.
The Tribunal was told that only 10 of these defects were attended to by Wadham Stringer, although they had been instructed to rectify them all, and as a result a GV9 was later issued in respect of the 11th.
According to Mr Hamilton, he is entitled to "rely on the skill and judgment of those with whom he places the work or from whom he hired the vehicle".
In their judgment, the Transport Tribunal stated that "There was no evidence before the deputy Licensing Authority to suggest that the appellant was not justified in believing that such a firm would carry out his instructions fully ".
Mr Hamilton told CM this week that although the punishment might not seem severe it was his intention to take whatever legal course of action he could to have the matter erased from his record.