AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Heed licence conditions

11th August 1994, Page 14
11th August 1994
Page 14
Page 14, 11th August 1994 — Heed licence conditions
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?

• The managing director of JMC (Building Ser. vices), of Southport must pay attention to all the terms and conditions of the company's licence, says North Western Licensing Authority Martin Albu.

The company received a new restricted licence for three vehicles, the number it had requested, following an inquiry.

Residents adjacent to one of the company's two operating centres complained that conditions imposed on a licence held by the associated firm J Maddox (Contractors) from the same site had not been observed.

The LA also expressed concern that the Traffic Area was not notified of the liquidation of J Maddox (Contractors) in early 1992 and that JMC had operated illegally from that time until gaining interim authority Managing director Patrick Maddox said he had overlooked the fact that the LA required notifying of the liquidation, as he had mistakenly thought the licence was held in his name and not that of his company.

He conceded that the one vehicle based at Mount Street, Southport, had been parked in the passageway leading to the yard, in breach of a condition on the previous licence. That had occurred when access had been blocked by debris while property was being refurbished, he said. He denied that it had been common practice for the vehicle to be left at the top of the passageway since the previous licence was granted in 1989.

The residents also claimed that vehicles were parked in the street and that work was carried on at the weekend, in breach of the licence conditions.

Albu said there were going to be circumstances which prevented an operator from complying with conditions but it was always open for the operator concerned to seek a permanent or temporary variation of those conditions.

The two offences of failing to notify the Traffic Area of the liquidation, and operating without a licence, were serious offences which would entitle him to hold that Maddox was unfit to hold a licence. It was also clear that the environmental conditions on the previous licence had been breached, and that again brought into question Maddox's fitness to hold a licence. However, on this occasion he was prepared to accept his excuses, such as they were, said Albu.

Granting the company a licence, and imposing the same conditions as before, Albu said that if there were any further breaches he would have to consider seriously whether the licence ought to continue.

Tags

Locations: Southport

comments powered by Disqus