AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Field work punished only vehicle

18th August 1972, Page 27
18th August 1972
Page 27
Page 27, 18th August 1972 — Field work punished only vehicle
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?

Keywords : Law / Crime

• A one-vehicle fanner and haulage contractor who, said the Eastern LA at Chelmsford last week, had not been able to operate it satisfactorily was not going to be given the -opportunity to operate a second and larger vehicle for which he had applied.

P. D. Pearce Ltd, of Arrington, Royston, Herts, had been called before the LA, Mr H. E. Robson, underSection 69 and also applied for an additional vehicle under Section 64.

The court was told that when a vehicle examiner called to inspect Mr Pearce's vehicle he found eight defects, including a fault in the steering box, for which he issued a GV9.

For the company it was said that it had operated the vehicle since October 1971 only and that it had been unlucky with garages to whom work had been entrusted. At the time of the examiner's inspection the vehicle was in use on field work which was extremely punishing. The company now required another vehicle to enable it to carry on additional business.

Commenting that although there were grounds on which he could make a direction under Section 69 on the licence, Mr Robson said he would confine himself to just refusing the application.

Tags

People: Robson, Pearce

comments powered by Disqus