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 
Abusive MD gets one last chance
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Traffic examiner's failure to act means that haulier keeps his repute. Mike Jewell reports.
A MANCHESTER operator who subjected a vehicle examiner to a tirade of abuse has narrowly avoided losing his licence. The traffic commissioner decided to give him a second chance because a subsequent traffic examiner failed to follow up a request for documents. and suspicions that maintenance records were faked proved unfounded.
North Western TC Beverly Bell heard that Robert Thomas. managing director of Ardwick-based FDT Transport, verbally abused the examiner during an unannounced maintenance investigation. He failed to provide any documentation to the examiner, but the examiner did not pursue the matter. For this reason she felt it would be unfair to take severe action against Thomas.
Adjourned The last chq of the public inquiry had been adjourned so that the validity of the maintenance records could be investigated and odometer readings compared with the tachograph charts.
On resumption,theTC was told that following a request for the production of tachograph records and details of all drivers employed, a fax was received from the company's solicitor.This said that a large number of FDT's tachograph and maintenance records had been stolen from a van (CM10 July and CM 7 August).
However, in her decision, the TC said she did not findThomas to have been honest and truthful over the alleged theft of the tachograph charts. He had asked her to believe that around 1,300 charts were in one bag and that he had not heard his van being broken into in the early hours of the morning. It was clear that Thomas had failed to provide any documentation to the traffic examiner, including items that were not allegedly stolen. But it was equally clear that the traffic examiner had not pursued the matter and for that reason she felt that it would be unfair to take severe action against Thomas.
Serious The findings against Thomas were serious but in this instance she did not feel it appropriate, or indeed proportionate, to make an order for loss of repute and the consequent revocation of the licence. However, she felt that Thomas' repute as director and transport manager was severely tarnished as a result of his failure to comply with various aspects of the legislation, his general attitude to those in authority and his cavalier disregard of and failure to comply with any of the traffic examiner's requests for information and documentation.
Other negative features were'Thomas' failure to make proper arrangements for the safekeeping of tachograph charts,and his aggressive and inappropriate attitude to authority.
Positive features included the apparent authenticity of the maintenance records and proof of a letter sent to the Traffic Area about a change of maintenance contractor, both of which she had initially questioned. Thomas had also apologised to the vehicle examiner and to her. She noted that Thomas' attitude and behaviour were bound to be affected by the fact that he was facing an unrelated c,our involving the death of a pedestrian.
She concluded that it would be dispr tionate to suspend or curtail the licence. In she directed that a full unannounced m. nance and tachograph investigation be ci out within the next nine to 18 months. Fi she warned that if further breaches were for which no good reason could be adva the severest action would be taken..