Why scepticism was not surprising
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Bradstep Ltd
• In a written judgment the Transport Tribunal has explained why it turned down the appeal of Bradstep Ltd, of Oaklands, Gaddsby, Leicester, against the decision of the Eastern Deputy LA in suspending its standard national 0-licence for two months from June 6.
The Tribunal says there was ample evidence before the DLA, who adjourned for half an hour before announcing her decision and must have been fully aware of the possible serious consequences for the company.
Bradstep, which has five vehicles and two trailers, was called to a public inquiry following three delayed prohibitions and non-fulfilment of maintenance promises.
The evidence was that the operator had signed maintenance contracts at various times with two firms, Ford Slater of Lincoln and Cossington Commercials of Leicester, providing for maintenance inspection at intervals of 9,600km (6,000 miles) or six weeks four weeks in one contract, In spite of attempts to get the company to mend its ways, says the Tribunal, the intervals of maintenance inspections were frequently much greater.
The Tribunal says that it was not surprised that the DLA was sceptical about changes — employing a full-time fitter and moving into a new workshop — producing a major improvement.
The defective vehicles, it says, remained on the licence and legally could have been put on the road at any time.
M.J. T. Lunn, secretary of the company, who also appeared before the Tribunal, told the DLA the firm had recently acquired a workshop which would be fitted out so fully that it could use its own fitters to do the inspections. Some of the vehicles with prohibitions were not going to be used until the faults were rectified. Another ground for the company's appeal was that suspension of all the company's vehicles for two months would have a damaging and possibly disastrous effect on its operations.