AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Inspector overruled

12th July 1986, Page 32
12th July 1986
Page 32
Page 33
Page 32, 12th July 1986 — Inspector overruled
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?

Weekway Ltd (Go With Gordon)

"'The decision of the Western Traffic Commissioners not to grant a further public service vehicles operator's licence to Weekway Ltd (trading as Go With Gordon) on the grounds of unsatisfactory maintenance and inadequate finance has been overturned by the Secretary of State for Transport.

Weekway appealed against the decision of the Commissioners made on November 15,1985 (Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981; Section 50 appeal) and an inquiry was held by the Minister's inspector, D. Adwas, at Exeter on February 25, 1986. The inspector recommended that the licence should not be renewed. The Minister decided to vary the Commissioners' decision, and has ordered them to grant a licence to expire on June 30, 1987, The Commissioners have been told. "The Secretary of State is concerned that slender financial resources may imperil maintenance standards and he observes that the past record of the company and its transport manager in providing adequate standards of maintenance is not good. However, he notes that the company is now reported to have a maintenance agreement with Autojade. The Secretary of State feels that the company should now be given a chance, firstly, to show that this agreement will prove satisfactory and, secondly, to provide more conclusive evidence of finacial standing. For these reasons, the Secretary of State cannot agree with his inspector's recommendation the appeal be dismissed."

The Minister said that a licence valid for one year should be granted, giving the Commissioners an opportunity to review the working of the company's maintenance agreement with Autojade and, if it seemed necessary, to obtain more detailed financial information from the company than so far supplied.

In his report, the inspector noted that the Commissioners acknowledge that the company now has a proper contractual agreement for inspections and preventive maintenance on an approved monthly/3,000 miles basis.

In his conclusion, the inspector said: "I recognise that Weekway Ltd is a new bus operator. but the trading name, Go With Gordon, and their transport manager, Mr Gordon Hartley, have links with the past, which I have no doubt, were in the minds of the Traffic Commissioners at the public sitting, to which the company had been summoned. These links were by no means favourable to Weekway Ltd.

"In normal circumstances, the company may have been given a strong warning by the Traffic Commissioners, but since the directors neither appeared nor produced written evidence to either the Traffic Commissioners, or to myself at the inquiry, I consider that their case was neither full nor complete. Nevertheless, that was the company's decision, yet as a result, they have not clarified the position as to who runs and controls the company."

The grounds for the appeal only challenged the decision to a very minor degree, said the inspector. "The challenge was largely on personal grounds, which called into conflict relationships between one of the Commissioners and the transport manager, and between the latter and one of the vehicle examiners. With regard to the deputy concerned, no evidence of bias was proved, although a personal relationship over an extended period was undoubtedly demonstrated. In my view, the evidence could, in no way, be construed to show that such bias existed. Such a charge could be avoided by more careful consideration of appointing panel members before future public sittings.

"I consider that one the of the vehicle examiners (Mr Merrifield) made unwarranted remarks, and also inferred many things in his evidence which could not be substantiated by him personally. I consider that his relationship with the transport manager leaves much to be desired, whatever the background to this case. It has to be accepted that vehicle examiners are asked to comment on matters beyond the pure technical ground of vehicle examinations. The charge of hounding by the Authorities is, in may mind, not made unreasonably by the company.

"Like the Traffic Commissioners, I, too, note that a number of convictions against the company have been proven in the courts. I recognise their decision that these do not bring the company into disrepute, and I accept their conclusions based upon the evidence at this time."

The fact that the company had always operated in credit was commendable, said the inspector, but lack of financial backup gave cause for concern. "The ownership of one vehicle (ATT 877 L) and only £130 in cash balance I consider is too weak a base on which to operate a public service vehicle on the public highway in a safe and proper manner. The company has two vehicles on licence at present, and has applied for a third vehicle. During the last year, it has received three prohibition notices for some 27 items in total, as well as an adverse maintenance investigation report."

After considering the inspector's report, the Minister said he had judged it proper to disregard the convictions incurred by the company and G. Hartley because the company was of good repute.

In the Minister's view the existence of a limited cash balance could not be conclusive evidence that an operator fails to satisfy the requirement to be of appropriate financial standing, given that most small businesses operate on overdrafts.

The Minister considered that the Commissioners' judgment that the company did not satisfy this requirement was based on inadequate evidence. He recognised that under Section 14 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act, 1981, the Commissioners could not have granted the application if they had considered that inadequate evidence of financial standing had been presented to them; however, in these circumstances the company should have been given an adequate time in which to present more detailed evidence.

IN Independent tribunals are likely to push the courts into the background in industrial disputes under a Labour government, according to a report in the Birmingham Post, June 6.

The paper reports that shadow employment secretary John Prescott made clear his party's determination to reverse the huge increase in the use of the courts by aggrieved employers and union members. He told the National Union of Seamen that he wanted to extend institutions like the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service and there were four main options.

Prescott dismissed the first two: keeping the status quo and removing the law totally from industrial relations. He cast doubt on a specialist labour court.

Putting the case for independent bodies to be given wide-ranging new responsibilites, he proposed that the High Court be barred from considering an industrial wrangle until it had been aired in front of such a body.


comments powered by Disqus