DEAR
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SIR
CPC REPORT INACCURATE • Frank Lewsey's "potted history" of the CPC system (CM, May 30) needs correction on two points.
In 1977 Britain decided to implement EEC Directives 741 561 and 741562. Misleading; Britain had no choice, since the Directives lay down the operative date.
When '0' licensing was established a separate Restricted licence was issued to ownaccount operators. Wrong. For its first seven years (1970-77) '0' licensing was a unified system. There was much reluctance in the Dip to split the system, and some (including me) wanted to make the CPC a requirement for all '0' licence holders. (This was the original idea behind the socalled Transport Manager's Licence envisaged in the 1968 Transport Act.) Not surprisingly the FTA fought this and, not surprisingly, the FTA won.
I congratulate Geoff Hadwick on passing the examination and even more on having the courage to risk failing it. When I was the Dip official responsible for the scheme I contemplated having a go, but could not face up to the potential humiliation of being "ploughed".
Reg Dawson West London HAVE CPC — WILL TRAVEL?
• I have just finished reading with great interest your article on CPCs, and the like, highlighting how important for the industry the need is for people with this qualification (CM May 30).
During 1986/88 I endured two years of study for the RSA Certificate in Road Freight Transport (which is CPC exempt) and a course which I believe is harder and more involved than the 'standard' CPC course. The outcome, I believed, at that time would be employment (which would be slightly easier to obtain) in the freight industry. This was not to be! With some sixty companies to whom I had written (some as far away as Leeds/Nottingham/Hull) showing no interest at all.
I am now at such a stage in my present employment that I have to seriously consider which career path to pursue; the strong desire for a post in transport is there, but the thought of continual rejection is demoralising to say the least.
Was the time and effort in successfully passing my CPC worth it?
C J Ridal Sheffield • I must take issue with Surrey County Council's Tony Bolden, as reported on page 6 of CM on 23 May. It is not at all the case that the Licensing Authorities are becoming less vigilant on enforcement. Just the reverse, Mr Bolden need look no further that the case reported on page 19 of the same CM issue; and there have been many similar decisions during recent months.
Over the last 2 years in the Metropolitan Traffic Area 18 Goods Operator licences have been revoked and 31 others suspended, curtailed or terminated prematurely. 106 applications for new licences have been refused. The Metropolitan Licensing Authority's approach to his responsibilities was set out at some length in your recent profile (CM 21 February 1987). He has made it abundantly clear that he will not tolerate those who blatantly disregard the system; and that provided there is bona fide and substantiated evidence — which is by no means always forthcoming — formal proceedings or disciplinary action in one form or other will always be taken against those who breach the licensing rules.
I am glad to have this opportunity through your columns to reassure the great majority of law-abiding operators who make up our haulage industry that Mr Bolden was totally mistaken in the views he expressed.
C L Carey Clerk to the Metropolitan Licensing Authority London W3
• The Clerk to the Metropolitan Licensing Authority has already written to you about the very misleading comments made by Mr Bolden of Surrey County Council (CM 23 May 1987). South Eastern Traffic Area have a rather lesser interest given that we are responsible for only two district councils in Surrey but I would endorse Mr Carey's comments.
There is ample evidence that the South Eastern Licensing Authority will take very firm action against those who disregard the law provided that a case can be properly supported with the necessary evidence. He has made clear his firm belief in the need for positive enforcement action.
D Cockram Clerk to the Licensing Authority Eastbourne East Sussex • Small hauliers and owner drivers having been run down for so many years as being the cowboys of the industry, isn't it nice to realise that the real cowboys are in fact at the other end of the scale, reference the recent prosecutions of Fleetcare and Dowsett Freight, and the owner-drivers perpetual fight with the ARC group.
Of course, as small hauliers, we didn't really need to be told these facts. Perhaps the realisation will eventually dawn on conglomerates such as British Rail and VAG that they might in fact be better off spreading their work about rather than having all their eggs in one basket.
Paul McEwen Managing director Spur Transporters Orpington Kent
• We read Mr Lodge's letter entitled Body Swop in CM week ending May 16th and believe that in some small way Mobil Oil Company may be able to help with his project. We currently operate a demountable body system on our vehicle based in our Dublin facility. This vehicle uses the "Abel" demountable system and the body options used are a lubricant tanker and box body. Both bodies used were designed in line with specific Mobil requirements and as I understand it are quite unique.
Should it be that Mr Lodge believes more information on this system may be of assistance to him and his project, may we suggest that in the first instance he contacts our Dublin Office and asks to speak to Mary Buggy, the office telephone number is Dublin 515722.
I trust that the foregoing is of interest to Mr Lodge and wish him every success in his final exams.
Don Wootton, AMIRTE, FIDiagE Specialist Engineer Automotive Lubes Mobil Oil Company, London