AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

LA hears of Munson's 38 hours and records offences

13th July 1973, Page 25
13th July 1973
Page 25
Page 25, 13th July 1973 — LA hears of Munson's 38 hours and records offences
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?

• A company with a record of 113 convictions against itself and drivers employed by it over a five-year period appeared under Section 69 before the Eastern LA, Mr H. E. Robson, at Ipswich last week.

Mr K. H. Shiemann, counsel for the company , D. R. Munson Ltd, Hadleigh, Suffolk, holder of a licence for 25 vehicles, told the LA that his heart sank when first he saw the schedule of convictions attached to the letter summoning the company to the hearing. Although on close examination he found the convictions against the company, totalling 38, were confined to 1969 and 1972. It was some consolation to him that although Munson's drivers had been prosecuted during the 1970/71 period the company had not.

Opening the case Mr James A. Chenery, a traffic examiner, told the court that he had been acquainted with Mr Munson since 1968. He had given the company advice and help and made monthly visits to the company. He read the long list of convictions against drivers and the company all of which related to hours and records offences.

Mr Chenery agreed with counsel that a notice had been displayed drawing drivers' attention to the hours and records regulations. He further agreed that although drivers had continued to be prosecuted throughout 1970/71 no charges had been brought against the company during that period.

When it was put to him that there was little the company .could do when they discovered offences had been committed on examining the log, Mr Chenery said that it might appear so but in this case drivers were prone to commit hours offences over a long period of time.

Giving evidence for his company, Mr Derek Roy Munson said that he was a director of three haulage companies. He had controlled D. R. Munson Ltd personally and had handled all the day to day work. Mr Munson said he had done his best to comply with regulations but he accepted that his best had not been good enough. For the future he intended leaving all the running of D. R. Munson to a newly appointed general manager. He had also recently taken on a traffic manager. His general manager, appointed in May, had already taken steps to tighten control of drivers.

Making a plea to the LA not to revoke the licence, Mr Shiemann said that Mr Munson was an entrepreneur; he had created a machine that had taken him over and he now realized that he had to delegate his authority and this had been done by taking on new staff.

Mr Munson was prepared to invest capital to expand his business and he wanted a chance for his new staff to get the business under full control. Revocation would be too drastic a step he said.

Mr Robson reserved his decision.


comments powered by Disqus