Statement of intent not fulfilled licence curtailed
Page 44
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The curtailment by two vehicles from the licence of Mr E. T. Mercer, trading as Shoreham Motor Metal Works Ltd, authorizing seven vehicles, was the result of a Section ,69 inquiry held at Eastbourne this week before the South Eastern LA.
Evidence from a vehicle examiner, Mr F. Gardner, showed that a fleet inspection held between January 20 and February 3 resulted in one immediate and three delayed GV9s being issued on the seven vehicles examined. Mr Gardner said Mr Mercer appeared content for the faults to be found and pointed out by the examiner.
No record system had been instituted 'although it was understood that a fleet care system was to be commenced with wall charts and comprehensive records. The vehicle examiner considered that the premises at Shoreham were adequate provided they were used solely for the vehicles. This was not normally the case, however, for besides the haulage business, commercial body repairs and paint work were carried out and it appeared that preference was given to these activities while any maintenance was done in a yard outside.
No repair work was contracted out but the two skilled fitters, in addition to Mr Mercer and body repair staff when available, were quite adequate for any maintenance and repairs necessary.
Mr Mercer, unrepresented in court, submitted a statement to the LA in which he said that the seven vehicles were tippers of some age and were used predominantly under contract to Tarmac Roadstone Ltd. The fleet inspection he felt, was the result of a GV9 in December, shortly before Christmas, when a vehicle, which had been taken out of the yard by a driver, was stopped for two cut tyres and smoke emission. The driver was subsequently convicted and fined £7.
No preparation of the vehicles was made for the fleet inspection because Mr Mercer felt that this was an opportunity for Mr Gardner, who was new in the area, to make known what his requirements were for vehicle maintenance. Had he known the seriousness of the inspection he would have prepared the vehicles more thoroughly, he said.
The LA, Maj-Gen A. F. J. Elmslie, said that Mr Mercer had been granted an 0 licence in March last year for the maximum period allowed at the time of the application, which was seven years. The statement of intent on the application form signed by Mr Mercer had clearly not been fulfilled; no records had been kept, no regular documented maintenance had been done and the facilities available for the maintenance were not being used. The LA ordered that the licence should be curtailed by two vehicles to be specified by the operator and gave a warning that a further appearance in court would result in a much stiffer penalty.