Transport lawyer Gary Hodgson has reminded an inquiry that restricted
Page 16
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
licence holders are not required to hold a CPC. He was representing a Lancashire scaffolding firm which had its licence suspended for seven days at a Leeds disciplinary inquiry before North Western Deputy Traffic Commissioner Mark Hinchliffe. Hodgson pointed out to the inquiry that it was a regular occurrence for restricted licence holders to appear at public inquiries because of ignorance of the significance of an Operator's Licence.
The IC was considering disciplinary action against Robert Longworth and George Hudson, trading as Acorn Scaffolding, of Knott End; the firm had also applied to add one vehicle to its one-vehicle restricted licence.
Vehicle examiner Michael Dobson said that in January he inspected one vehicle and issued an immediate prohibition showing a significant maintenance failure for a brake fluid leak and a defective brake caliper bleed nipple. No inspection records were produced.
He was told that they would be produced a few days later, but so far this had not happened. it was apparent that an additional unlicensed vehicle was being operated, as it had been the subject of a check by local police who were dealing with the matter.
in reply to Hodgson, Dobson agreed that his Impression was that the situation was due to naiveté rather than culpability. Both partners appeared willing to take advice.
Hodgson said that Longworth, who was in charge of mainte nance. was abroad on holiday. In his absence they had been able to locate only two inspection records. In future they planned to use two maintenance contractors who would carry out alternate inspections every six weeks as a quality control measure. Hudson agreed that neither partner held a CPC. He undertook personal responsibility for ensuring that the vehicles were inspected every six weeks and that the driver defect reporting system, introduced on the examiner's advice, would be maintained. He had no knowledge of the police matter.
Suspending the licence, the Deputy IC said he had not revoked the licence because of the undertakings he had been given. Nevertheless, he regarded it as a serious case. He warned that revocation was likely if the vehicle was used in defiance of his order.
Adjourning the consideration of the variation application until the beginning of May, the Deputy IC said he required Longworth, who appeared to have shown a distinct lack of concern about the inquiry, to appear before him.