Licence curtailed for second time
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A West Midland ex-mechanic who attempted to -runa fleet of four vehicles from the kerbside and a piece of waste ground, was destined for disaster right from the start. This was said by the West Midland LA, Mr John Else, in Birmingham on Wednesday, when he curtailed under Section 69 the operator's licence held by Mr D. P. Thorpe of Birmingham.
Mr Else. who had reduced the vehicle authorization from four to two in 1970, removed a third vehicle after hearing that following the previous curtailment, Mr Thorpe had still not taken steps to improve his maintenance and recording system.
Mr A. Morris, a DoE vehicle examiner, told the LA that while carrying out routine vehicle examinations on October 8 and 10 last year he had discovered that three vehicles owned by Mr Thorpe were in a very bad condition and issued each with an immediate GV9. Maintenance records produced for his inspection had been. he felt, made up purely for his visit and had no connection with any maintenance inspections which may or may not have been carried out. He added that he was told at this time that preventative maintenance inspections were carried out by Mr Thorpe himself and major repairs were undertaken by a local garage.
In defence of his licence, Mr Thorpe said that he had now made arrangements to lease premises which incorporated covered accommodation for up to three vehicles and included a maintenance pit.
In addition there was also a yard. with hard standing, and ample tools and equipment were available to carry out maintenance repairs.
Asked by the LA why he had not improved his maintenance methods since the previous disciplinary hearing, Mr Thorpe replied that he had been ill for three months and had been compelled to give up driving. He now intended to devote his time to the running of the business and to ensure that maintenance arrangements reached the standard required by the DoE.
On deciding to curtail the licence, to leave one vehicle only, Mr Else said that although he felt it fitting he would not enforce a revocation on this occasion. hut warned Mr Thorpe that he would not get another chance.
At the same inquiry Mr L. J. Wilde of Coventry received a licence suspension after failing to attend a similar Section 69 hearing. It was stated that the licence, which authorized one vehicle in possession and two to be acquired would be suspended until it was found whether the vehicle in possession had received its annual plating and testing certificate.
Mr J. H. Allen of Birmingham. authorized to operate one vehicle with a margin of one vehicle to be acquired, was also called under Section 69. After hearing that Mr Allen had not been keeping maintenance records Mr Else decided to remove the one vehicle margin.
After discovering that Mr R. Smith did not have an operator's licence in his own name but only that of a recently dissolved partnership Mr Else reached the conclusion that although he could not take action against a non-existent licence he would not accept any future application by Mr Smith until March 30.