Surrey firm
Page 14
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A LONG ESTABLISHED Surrey coach operator has had its licence revoked following its conviction on drivers' hours and tachograph offences which its counsel said were only the result of a misunderstanding of the law.
By a majority decision, the South-Eastern Traffic Commissioners have revoked the 15-vehicle 0-licence held by 11: F. and A. H. Bicknell of Godalming, after hearing of Guildfiird magistrates' conviction of the company and 10 of its drivers on 48 offences last August. The company will continue to operate pending a possible appeal.
For Bicknells, Michael Parroy argued that the drivers' hours and tachograph rules were complicated and neither easy to understand nor remember.
Fifteen cases involving failures by drivers to operate the mode switches of their tachographs did not seriously reflect on the partners' repute.
The remaining offences at worst indicated a misunderstanding of the rules, he said.
It had been mistakenly believed that vehicles driven during the miners' strike were covered by the provisions that allowed hours limits to be exceeded in cases of emergency.
The firm had also failed to treat "out of scope" driving on school contracts as "work" for the purposes of the regulations.
Bicknell 's Leyland Tiger coach.
In other instances, drivers who had fallen ill had been replaced by other drivers who, it later transpired. had insufficient "spare" hours.
When the convictions were set against the firm's previous long record without complaint they were insufficient for it to be said that the partners had lost their repute as operators.
But Commissioners' chairman Randall Thornton said they concluded that the partners no longer satisfied the requirements to be of good repute and consequently they were bound by the law to revoke the licence.
The commissioners had given full allowance for the partners' record over many years without any complaint and without any previous convictions or appearances before the commissioners.
They felt the partners had shown a lack of understanding for the requirements of the law, which the Commissioners found difficult to accept in an operator of such lengthy experience, or they had been negligent in not ensuring that the regulations were followed.
The Commissioners were not entirely satisfied that the partners had been under a genuine misunderstanding as to the requirements of the rules.
The sum total of the partners' conduct, taken as a whole, indicated that their good repute as operators of public service vehicles must be in question.
The Commissioners directed that their decision not take effect until the time allowed for appeal had elapsed or any appeal is dealt with.