1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212 
Operators who put things right 'have little to fear'
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A BLACKBURN operator's application for six extra vehicles has been granted, with a warning that the company must never again let the 0-licensing regulations "fall towards the bottom of the agenda— even off the scale altogether". The company's main problems concerned poor record keeping and running unauthorised vehicles, but it had responded quickly when made aware of the problems. Such operators have little to fear from a Traffic Commissioner, said North-West TC Beverley Bell when Blackburn based General All Purpose Plastics, trading as GAP, appeared
before her at a St Helens disciplinary inquiry. It was currently operating 20 vehicles under interim authority and was seeking to increase its authorisation from 16 to 26 vehicles.
Vehicle examiner Neil Mitchell said a delayed prohibition had been issued in November 2002 for a steering defect; an immediate prohibition for low tyre pressures was imposed in October 2003.
When he visited the company at the end of the year the vehicles were satisfactory. Record keeping had been poor but he was aware changes had been implemented since his visit. However, it seemed that the company was operating more vehicles than it was authorised for and he gave advice on the regulations. In reply to Martin Carter, for the company, Mitchell said maintenance was contracted out and he was satisfied that the work was being done but it had not been properly recorded. Carter said neither of the prohibitions indicated any significant failure of the
maintenance system. There had been a regrettable failure in record keeping but the problems had been attended to. It was not a case of a company over stretching itself by the number of vehicles it was seeking to maintain.
Granting the increase with a warning, the TC said that it was clear that the company had allowed 0-licensing to fall towards the bottom of the agenda.