AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Manager took control but licence was curtailed

12th January 1973
Page 24
Page 24, 12th January 1973 — Manager took control but licence was curtailed
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 South Eastern deputy LA, Mr G. Mercer, curtailed last week the nine-vehicle licence of Southern Linen Services Ltd and refused an application by the company to add two more vehicles. The Portsmouth basedcompany was called before the deputy LA under Section 69/following the issue of four defect notices and one delayed 0V9 during 1972.

A vehicle examiner, Mr J. K. Whicher, said he inspected the company's vehicles in June last year and issued the defect notices and prohibition. Some of the faults found on the vehicles reflected bad maintenance, and excessive smoke was being emitted from two vehicles. The vehicle issued with the GV9 had more than 10 faults listed.

Although the facilities were satisfactory, said Mr Whicher, the maintenance records were too general in nature. However, the company asked Mr Whicher to inspect the fleet again in December and he found on that occasion that everything was satisfactory.

Mr M. J. Flynn, the firm's manager, said that in 1971 he realized the transport situation was unsatisfactory and took control of the vehicles himself. He was not satisfied as to the competence of the mechanic and when this was confirmed by the first visit of Mr Whither the mechanic was replaced. The premise i had also been improved.

In his decision, Mr Mercer said that was doubt whether the mechanic handle the number of vehicles unde control. He also pointed out that, ahh Mr Flynn had signed the application fo additional vehicles, there Was confusk to what was, in fact, being applied for deputy LA warned that fonts mm signed by the person filling in the form.

The licence was curtailed by one vc to eight and the application was refusc request to defer the decision order unt expiry of time allowed for appeal granted.