AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Stirrup: serious warning

10th October 1991
Page 24
Page 24, 10th October 1991 — Stirrup: serious warning
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?

• North Western Deputy LA Kenneth Birchall has allowed Manchester haulier Michael Stirrup to keep his licence, despite a conviction for fraud.

In May Stirrup was trading as Central Transport, of Middleton, using two vehicles with identical registration numbers and documentation (CM 16-22 May). Stirrup was ordered to pay more than £4,100 in fines, costs and back duty for fraudulently using a vehicle excise licence, making a false declaration on a vehicle excise licence application form, fraudulently using a vehicle registration mark, using a Ministry plate with intent to deceive, using a vehicle without an excise licence, using a vehicle without an 0-licence, and using a vehicle without a test certificate (CM 16-22 May).

Birchall was told that at the time of the offences Stirrup had his back to the wall". He had an overdraft facility for 2.10,000 but was overdrawn by £25,000 after four customers had gone into liquidation.

Stirrup said that he was now in credit with the bank, and busi ness was better than it had been for 18 months.

He was authorised for 10 vehicles and he had five in possession, but they were not all in constant use.

A drivers hours and records prosecution is still against Stirrup. He had originally faced 300 allegations, but that had been reduced to 15 and he hoped these would be withdrawn.

The DLA gave Stirrup a serious warning, cut the duration of his licence to expire in September 1992, and reduced his 0-licence authorisation to six vehicles.

Tags

Locations: Manchester

comments powered by Disqus