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 
TC bans 'dangerous' firm that failed to make inspections
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A CONTAINER COMPANY that neglected safety inspections since its licence was issued two years ago has been taken off the road to protect the public. Safety inspection reports produced at public inquiry appeared to have been fabricated.
Eastern Traffic Commissioner Geoffrey Simms revoked the licence of Colchester. Essex-based Container Storage Service and disqualified its sole director, Ronald Eales. from holding or obtaining an 0-licence for three years.
Vehicle examiner Nicholas Matthams told a Cambridge public inquiry that the company had left its authorised operating centre. Eales said it had moved premises because of a series of break-ins.
Two safety inspection reports completed by Eales used unsuitable forms and the date on (me had been altered.
There was no other evidence of safety inspections being carried out since the granting of the licence in May 2004. There were no maintenance facilities and driver defect books had not been used. Three prohibition notices had been issued, one of which was issued to a vehicle not specified on the licence.
Matthams questioned the authenticity of the safety records produced at the hearing because of their unmarked, pristine condition and the fact that they had been completed by the same person apparently using the same pen. Eales. however, produced a maintenance agreement with a garage.
The second vehicle operated was equipped with a crane for working on sites and did not carry goods on the road. However he admitted it had been towing a trailer loaded with a portable building when prohibited. Eales also agreed that he had not produced any financial evidence despite being requested to do so.
No safety inspections had been carried out during the first nine months of the licence's life because he could not afford them.
The TC concluded that Eales simply could not come to terms with the 0-licensing system. Consequently. he was not prepared to take any further risks with a haulage operation under his control.