AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

No regard for law' firm taught lesson

18th August 1972, Page 29
18th August 1972
Page 29
Page 29, 18th August 1972 — No regard for law' firm taught lesson
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 : Traffic Law

Four vehicles from the licence of G. H. Transport Co Ltd authorizing nine vehicles were suspended for three months last week when the company appeared before the South Wales deputy LA in Cardiff under Section 69.

G. H. Transport had been called because )f two immediate and two delayed GV9s which had been placed on the company's vehicles following inspections which revealed a crack in a spring hanger bracket, badly bent track rod, broken spring leaf, worn tyres, and a propshaft bolt missing. Mr D. Egan told the deputy LA, Mr C. Hugh James, that he had been in London while his brother had taken on work concerned with the building of a new by-pass road. His brother, he said, was not very informed about the work which was on a very bad site. When he returned from London he immediately removed the vehicles from the site and corrected all the defects. Mr Egan said that if he had been there the trouble would never have occurred.

Mr Egan said three fitters were employed full time and one part time. He said he had been unable to obtain record books in Cardiff although he had been promised that they would be ordered. He confirmed that he had tried everywhere but when pressed admitted he had not tried any of the associations.

Suspending the four vehicles for three months. the deputy LA said he was certain the company had no regard for the law and would have to be taught a lesson.

At the same hearing a one-vehicle operator, with 40 years' experience, had his licence suspended for three months after he admitted he did not realize what was required in keeping maintenance records.

Mr G. A. Lane, the operator, said that he had sent the vehicle for repairs before taking it for its annual test but it was failed because of bad brakes and steering. He had now changed his garage and hoped that in future the work would be done properly. Mr Lane admitted that he did not understand what was required with regard to records but he promised to keep proper records in the future.

The deputy LA said that he would have to penalize the operator and, in spite of Mr Lane's plea that to take the one vehicle away front him would ruin his business, decided to remove the vehicle on the licence for three months.

Tags

Locations: Cardiff, London

comments powered by Disqus