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 
No awareness is no defence
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN IRISH FIRM which needs a "root and branch review of its operating procedures" has had its licence halved after its claim that it was used to a different regulatory regime in Ireland was strongly rejected at a public inquiry The North Western Area licence held by College Freight Services (Northern Ireland), trading as FGL, was cut by Traffic Commissioner Beverley: Bell from six vehicles and two trailers to three vehicles and two trailers.
Evidence had been given by a vehicle examiner that some of the inspection records produced when he visited the company were not proper preventative maintenance inspection sheets and they showed extended gaps between inspections. Inspection records produced at the public inquiry were not the records that were produced to him when he visited the company and were records that appeared to have been produced after the event.
For the company, it was said that some of the inspections had been carried out at Newton Butler in Northern Ireland, where different types of records were acceptable as it was a different regime ( CM 9 June 2005).
Cutting the licence, the TC said that she rejected completely the assertion that because this was an English licence the company did not know how to comply with the requirements in this country as there were different standards in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The fact that a licence was held in another member state was not relevant to non-compliance with the law in an English, Scottish or Welsh area.
Indeed, this was not an operator with limited resources struggling to come to terms with the regulatory regime. The company has a wealth of resources available to it and is a longstanding member of the Freight Transport Association.
The object of the legislation was the promotion of road safety and fair competition. The present case, with its connections to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, illustrated that point graphically where the operator alleged that there was an apparently inconsistent approach between the licensing authorities. In a widening international arena a consistency of approach between licensing authorities became ever more important.
There was a doubt in her mind as to whether or not the company currently fully understood its obligations. She was concerned that the company still thought that the solution to the problem lay solely with its maintenance contractor whereas in fact the solution to the problem lay, in her view, with a root and branch review of its operating procedures and how they impacted upon compliance with the operator licensing requirements.
Finally, the TC directed that a copy of her decision be sent to the Licensing Authorities for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as well as to the Traffic Commissioner for the West Midlands Traffic Area, in which the company also holds a licence. •