AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

One vehicle operator saves licence after eight months' fight

10th August 1973, Page 19
10th August 1973
Page 19
Page 19, 10th August 1973 — One vehicle operator saves licence after eight months' fight
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords : Law / Crime

• An eight months' fight to save his licence for one vehicle and one trailer ended this week when the operator, Mr C. C. Fairhead, of Hedenham, Suffolk, was granted renewal for a two-year period.

No direction was made under a Section 69 inquiry heard at the same time although the Eastern LA, Mr H. Robson, said there were grounds for action.

At a public inquiry in September 1972, Mr Fairhead complained that he had been called for a Section 69 inquiry at 11 am and that he was not prepared to wait after that time. He left and the deputy LA heard the case in his absence after saying that he had been given an opportunity to state his case. The licence was revoked.

Following an appeal to the Transport Tribunal, the case was remitted for a fresh hearing this week.

Opening his case, Mr Fairhead submitted that the immediate GV9 which gave rise to the original inquiry was issued improperly. He considered that a legal order should have been issued to show his responsibility. He did not realize the legal consequences of the order or its future implications. The original GV9 had been retained at the testing station, a few days after being issued and he was, therefore, unable to contest the matters complained of. Mr Fairhead told the LA that he could not decide an inquiry on the basis of an order improperly made.

Rejecting this, Mr Robson said the case would proceed and he would hear again the evidence given at the last hearing by a vehicle examiner. Mr J. Jones, the examiner, told the court that he called at the premises in September last year and inspected one vehicle. He issued an immediate GV9 specifying two defects and listed six other faults less serious. When the vehicle was taken to a testing station for clearance three days later five more defects were noted and clearance was refused. Mr Jones said there were no records of inspection available, facilities were bad and the vehicle was standing in a field. Questioned by Mr Fairhead, Mr Jones agreed that during a visit in july this year he had been shown hard standing and a ramp and the vehicle was clear of any defects.

Announcing his decision, Mr Robson said there were grounds for action following neglect of the vehicle in 1972. However, taking into account low mileage of 60 to 100 miles weekly, and the hard work associated with tar-laying he felt he could allow a limited licence. The LA also noted that facilities had been improved since December and that Mr Fairhead had an arrangement with an engineer to carry out maintenance.

Tags

Organisations: Transport Tribunal

comments powered by Disqus