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 
Lift yourself, LA warns operator
Page 42
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
JACK ATHA, trading as Atha's Transport, was warned at Leeds last week that renewal of his 0-licence would not be granted until he could show he was keeping proper maintenance records.
His application to renew his one-vehicle 0-licence had been remitted back to the Yorkshire LA for re-hearing following an appeal against its original refusal.
Maj-Gen V. H. J. Carpenter, the Yorkshire LA, said that in February the deputy Licensing Authority, Mr N. F. Moody, had refused the application because of unsatisfactory Maintenance arrangements, records and parking of the vehicle.
At the appeal before the Transport Tribunal, Mr Atha produced a letter from a commercial garage confirming that arrangements had been made for inspections every three months. He also said proper garaging arrangements were being made.
In remitting the case, the Tribunal said strictly they ought to dismiss the appeal as they had to consider the correctness of an LA's decision in the light of the evidence before him. However, they had decided the best course was to remit the case, which would prevent the appellant having to cease operation pending the determination of a new application.
Last week Mr Atha said he had held an 0-licence for five years and had never been pulled up on the road for operating a faulty vehicle.
He had now made arrangements to keep the vehicle in a private compound in Water Lane; he said it would not be kept outside his home overnight.
Mr Atha produced the letter from the commercial garage and one invoice for work done in November 1975. He said the records were in the form of bills which he had not brought with him. Work done on the vehicle since November, 1975, was recorded on unpaid bills..
Maj-Gen Carptenter said one of the reasons the application was refused in February was that the applicant was not keeping proper inspection records. He had been told he must do so, yet he had not done so and was expecting a licence to be granted.
Mr Atha said one of the problems was pressure of work.
Maj-Gen Carpenter said he was not satisfied there was a proper maintenance system. A letter from a commercial garage was not sufficient in itself. He required to see invoices and servicing schedules. He was trying his hardest to help the applicant, but Mr Atha was not helping himself.
He would adjourn the appli cation to give the applicant th( opportunity to produce in th( next few days a file containinE all the invoices and servicini schedules relating to the vehi cle. If they were satisfactory the application would 13( ' granted. If they were no satisfactory, Mr Atha woul( be called to a further publii inquiry and it was likely thi application would be refused.
Mr Atha said that would pu him out of business. He ha( spent £400 on putting till vehicle right and he needed t( be able to get his money back Maj-Gen Carpenter said M Atha had to lift himself up. I he could not, or would not then he was sorry but then would be no licence.