AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Haulier loses appeal over disqualification

14th October 2010
Page 24
Page 24, 14th October 2010 — Haulier loses appeal over disqualification
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?

TC Tom Macartney's disqualification of the director of Roadmaster Logistics is upheld

THE BOSS OF Roadmaster I .ogistics a firm described by North East Traffic Commissioner (TC)Tom Macartney (pictured) as one where "lots of very basic things" had gone wrong has lost an appeal against his disqualification.

Upper Tribunal judge Frances Burton, dismissed the appeal from Junaid Mayet, sole director of the Batley, West Yorkshire company, against the decision by Macartney, at a public inquiry in April, to disqualify him for two years and revoke his firm's 0-licence.

VOSA vehicle examiner Michael Mann carried out a maintenance inspection into the company authorised for one vehicle, with one vehicle in possession in September 2009.

He found that maintenance records were not available and were incomplete, preventative maintenance inspection intervals were not respected, and there were insufficient records to support them. Also, defect records were not endorsed as re paired, there was no forward planner for safety inspections no maintenance contract was available with a new maintenance agent, and the condition of the vehicle was decribed as "unsatisfactory': In addition, the operating centre was not as specified on the licence, and the transport manager had been changed, with none of the above being notified to the Iris office. The TC said it was "probably the worst casehe had seen of a vehicle examiner discovering problems and that "lots of very basic things" had gone wrong at the business At the public inquiry, Mayet explained that the missing inspection sheets had been retained by the original PMI contractor who had been upset at his decision to go elsewhere.

He said his failure to notify the changes had been due to an ongoing Crown Court case between 2008 and 2010.

At the same time, his wife had been ill with Lupus and his mother had been suffering from cancer.

However, the appeal judge said: "We have no indications before us of Mayet's ability to realise his obligations as a haulier regulated by the Te, and every indication that ability is not there.

"It is clear to us that Mayet needs to turn over a new leaf and start again."


comments powered by Disqus