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 
Knuckles rapped over conviction
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A failure to report a conviction to the Traffic Commissioner resulted in Andover-based Lenham Storage (Southern I, part of the Lenham Storage Group, being hauled before Western TO Philip Brown.
The company, which holds a licence for 27 vehicles and 45 trailers, appeared before the IC at a Bristol disciplinary inquiry. The IC was already considering an application to increase the authorisation to 4.5 vehicles and 45 trailers.
In August 2001, the company was given a warning at a previous Public Inquiry over failing to inspect trailers on a regular basis.
For Lenham, Stephen Thomas said that the failure to notify the conviction was a genuine oversight. The problem arose when transport administrator Steve Phipps was away on holiday. When he returned, he was informed that everything had been dealt with.
"It was human error and the company has now addressed the issue," said Thomas. "Mr Phipps [of Lenham Storage] now takes full responsibility for these matters There had been one prohibition since the last Public Inquiry for a brake problem. said Thomas, where the dri ver had not noticed anything amiss. Action was taken and the driver given a warning.
Following this, a spot check by the Vehicle Inspectorate in early January found everything to be satisfactory.
Taking no action, and granting the additional vehicles, the IC said that he accepted that the non-notification of the conviction had been an oversight. It was clear that the VI was now satisfied with the company's maintenance. However. should the company again find itself at a Public Inquiry over maintenance or convictions, the present matter would also be taken into consideration.