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
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266 
Monthly inspections inadequate
Page 199
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The West Midland LA, Mr. J. Else, granted only eight out of the 10 vehicles applied for when the B licence held by Mr. B. Parker was renewed at a Section 174 inquiry in Birmingham last week.
The LA said that since Mr. Parker had appeared before him at a Section 178 inquiry in May 1968, when the applicant had his B licence curtailed by the removal of two vehicles for six weeks each, there had been certain other convictions and prohibitions.
On February 5 an immediate prohibition was placed on one vehicle and Mr. Parker was subsequently convicted at Atherstone magistrates' court for allowing the use of a vehicle with a defective foot brake and other parts. He was fined a total of £40. In the following March, at the vehicle examination, five vehicles were subject to a delayed prohibition and one to an immediate prohibition.
Mr. Parker explained that his vehicles were engaged on rough site work delivering materials to building sites and this, and the exceptionally bad winter, had caused some of his vehicles to get into a poor condition.
Mr. N. Carless, for the applicant, said that since the 178 inquiry the maintenance system had been revised. Mr. Parker employed one full-time mechanic, one apprentice and two other mechanics worked part-time at weekends. Over £1,000 had been spent on new maintenance equipment. The vehicles were greased once a fortnight and systematically inspected once a month. A chart on the garage wall showed when each vehicle was due.
The LA said that he thought a once-monthly inspection for vehicles employed on this type of work was inadequate. He knew the applicant wished to apply for a variation of conditions to his B licence and when that application came before him he would also consider restoring the other two vehicles to the licence.