AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Vehicle driven without MoT or licence disc

18th October 2012
Page 16
Page 16, 18th October 2012 — Vehicle driven without MoT or licence disc
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?

TC refuses O-licence, saying construction firm is putting commercial considerations before vehicle safety

By Roger Brown

NICK DENTON, traffic commissioner (TC) for London and the South East, has refused construction firm Lenmark Construction an O-licence after describing the company as having put “commercial considerations before vehicle safety” .

During an August public inquiry (PI) in Eastbourne, the TC was told that a vehicle operated by the Horsham-based firm was stopped at the roadside by Vosa traffic examiner Neil Rossiter in April. It did not have a valid licence disc or valid MoT certificate.

The driver, who was carrying a load of hot tarmac, confirmed he was working for the company on that day.

Rossiter issued a notice prohibiting the vehicle from continuing its journey. However, after taking instructions over the phone from Maltabased director Leonard Nugent, the driver drove off, breaching the order.

The driver later claimed Nugent told him the vehicle did have a valid MoT and that the tarmac could not go to waste.

Rossiter also downloaded the head and driver card from the vehicle’s digital tachograph, but found that there was no paper in the head.

He said the driver admitted that he did not have a new roll and that the company had not downloaded the head or his driver’s card since at least January, even though he had requested that it be done.

At the PI, TC Denton was told that Nugent’s predecessor company, Nugent Construction, had entered voluntary liquidation in November 2011.

This firm had held an O-licence, but Nugent failed to surrender it to the TC after liquidation, as he should have done. Lenmark applied for a restricted licence to operate one vehicle in December 2011.

In his evidence to the TC Nugent claimed he was 100% sure the vehicle had an MoT certificate, though he admitted he had not asked to see a copy when he purchased the vehicle earlier in the year.

He also explained that the business had shrunk in recent times and this had led to some things being overlooked, including on the transport side.

However, in his written decision TC Denton said that responsible operators would have asked to see the certificate or interrogated Vosa’s website to establish whether the vehicle had an MoT.

He added: “Even when the vehicle had been prohibited, Mr Nugent, in the face of all the evidence, clung to his groundless conviction that the vehicle had a valid MoT.

“He chose to order the driver to continue the journey, putting commercial considerations before safety and legality.

“In my view, a company that knowingly and deliberately operates without an operator’s licence, even after having been warned not to do so, and which knowingly and deliberately operates a vehicle without an MoT certificate, even after the vehicle has actually been prohibited by Vosa from continuing its journey for that reason, cannot be relied upon to run a consistently compliant operation in the future.”


comments powered by Disqus