"Absurd"contract, decides LA
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A MAINTENANCE contract meant a written contract. For an operator to say there was a verbal contract was really only an exercise in semantics, and in essence meant there was no contract at all.
This was the view of the East Midland Licensing Authority, C. M. Sheridan, during disciplinary proceedings involving Waste Oil (Nottingham) Ltd, at Nottingham.
Vehicle examiner T. Burton said the company held a licence for four vehicles, with one to be acquired. The records were scanty and there appeared to be an absence of any effective maintenance system.
He examined two vehicles and imposed immediate prohibitions on both for brake defects. A third vehicle was also given an immediate prohibition.
He had visited the company in October, 1976, and again this February. Although he was told that maintenance was carried out by a commercial garage, no written contract was available for inspection.
For the company, J. Stillborn said the contract had been a verbal one which had since been confirmed in writing.
Mr Sheridan said that was absurd. There had been no contract. The letter from the garage stated that it had car-. ried out maintenance and repair work as and when required and would continue to do so in the future. That was not a contract and he was minded to suspend the licence until a proper contract had been drawn up.
After examining recent inspection records, Mr Sheridan said the system now in use appeared to be satisfactory and it was a question of keeping it up. He proposed to curtail the licence to the four vehicles in possession and no further action would be taken if an acceptable maintenance contract was produced within the next 14 days.