Appeal dismissed
Page 5
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE TRANSPORT tribunal i London turned down an appe for the second time last week. I this case William North Curti an operator whose vehicl maintenance was not up t standard, was appealing again: a decision of the Norther Licensing Authority.
R. Hird, his solicitor, mail tamed that the LA's decision t revoke Mr Curtis's operator licence was too severe and thi the decision acted too harshl against his client.
Mr Curtis has been the subjel of four public inquiries in Jul 1978, January 1980, Novembc 1980 and June 1981. Mr Hir stated that the LA had corr pletely overlooked the clear di ference between the first two ir quiries and the third inquiry. A the third inquiry in NovembE 1980 the LA said: "I must accer that there has been an improv( ment."
At the fourth inquiry, in Jun 1981, it was found that the war of a fitter employed by Mr Curti in August 1979, had worsenec The fitter, a Mr Mitchell, ha been employed when Mr Curti became ill, and so Mr Curtis wa not able to see what was har pening. However, Mr Mitche was reprimanded and late sacked when his faults came t light. Mr Curtis was allegedl given no credit for this by the LA In revoking the licence, the L had not taken into account th earlier improvement in mainter ance standards, Mr Curtis's i health, and the steps taken t rectify matters, said Mr Hird.
In summing up, Mr Hiri claimed the revocation was to severe and inappropriate, as left Mr Curtis not knowing wher he stood. It was fitting that lighter penalty be imposed, h, said.
In dismissing the appeal, th Tribunal said it would publish it reasons at a later date.