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 
Operator who 'failed in every department' loses his licence
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A TC has decided that an operator's financial declaration was simply "an arrangement without substance" Michael Jewell reports.
EASTERN TRAFFIC Commissioner Geoffrey Simms has disqualified Boston-based David Padley from holding an 0-licence for a year, remarking that he had "failed in every departmentand was "singularly to operate goods vehicles".
Padley held a three-vehicle licence. but when he appeared before the TC at a Cambridge disciplinary inquiry he admitted his transport manager had never visited his base and they had only spoken once by phone.
Vehicle examiner David Unsworth reported that in December 2004 he had advised Padley that the tachograph in one of his vehicles was due for recalibration. In June 2005 he had issued an advisory notice for signs of wear to a suspension anchor hush. The tachograph had still not been calibrated, despite a further reminder from the maintenance contractor.
'Hie inspection records showed intervals of 12 and 23 weeks instead of the 10 weeks specified in Padley's maintenance contract. One vehicle had been used for about five weeks after its test certificate had expired. In October the anchor hush had still not been repaired so Unsworth had issued a delayed prohibition.
Padley told the inquiry he had begun the business making multi-drop deliveries for a DIN supplies company using small vans. In 2004 the business expanded so he needed larger vehicles.
1 le accepted that he had not been properly organised but claimed he had adhered to the 10-weekly inspection cycle, adding he was still awaiting an inspection sheet for one vehicle two months alter it had been inspected.
Serious failures
He said hi transport manager. David Birtwistle, was extremely difficult to contact and had never attended his premises. He had paid Birtwistle £40 a week but they only had one phone conversation. Palley denied the problems had been caused by a lack of funds, telling Simms that the f9.160 specified for financial repute when the licence was granted had not been used.
Simms said Birtwistic had not carried out his duties as transport managcr,so he no longer met the requirement for professional competence. As the .0,1(X.) in the statutory declaration had not been used, he concluded it had been an arrangement without substance, and inadequate financial resources were responsible for what had been quite serious failures.
Ridley had either shut his eyes and ears to the obvious, or simply lacked the capacity required of an operator of goods vehicles
Sim ms concluded that Padley was demonstrably reluctant to abide by the statutory provisions governing 0-licensing and the operation of commercial vehicles. •