Imperial carries on with fewer vehicles
Page 17
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A haulier in North Humberside in admini
strative receivership has been allowed to continue operating.
However, North Eastern Traffic Commissioner Keith Waterworth cut the licence held by Goole-based Imperial Transport from 10 vehicles and 10 trailers to eight vehicles and 10 trailers and suspended another vehicle for a one month.
Vehicle examiner Roger Page said that since a previous public inquiry in July 1996, three imme diate prohibitions had been imposed on the company's vehicles and trailers, one of which was endorsed as showing a significant maintenance failure.
The commissioner pointed oui that the
company had also been convicted of a
vehicle excise duty Waterwor offence in July, being look again fined £3,100 and in a year's ordered to pay
£258.33 in back duty and £30 prosecution costs.
For the company, Dominic Vincent said Imperial was in administrative receivership following a court order in February. The offence was committed in November and an appeal had been lodged against the size of the fine. Nlanaging director Tony Brocklesby said he had been under a lot of pressure over the past six months and the offence arose from an oversight. The company had amassed a lot of bad debts and three court cases were pending involving debts of five-figure sums.
Waterworth said he was concerned to hear that Imperial's debts were frozen before it went into receivership and that the Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise were owed about £70,000 between them.
Kenneth Bradshaw, a licensed insolvency practitioner, said the company had net assets when the administration order was granted. The problem had been one of liquidity The freezing of the preadministration debts was only an interim position to allow the
th: Will company—which at finances was now trading time. profitably—to get back on its feet. He was confident it could be rescued. Waterworth said he was satis fied that Imperial should be allowed to continue but he would look at its finance again in a year's time. However, disciplinary action was needed because concern about maintenance had been expressed at two previous public inquiries.