AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Warning on unauthorised Smith artics

19th January 1989
Page 21
Page 21, 19th January 1989 — Warning on unauthorised Smith artics
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?

• T H Smith (Rawnsley) has escaped with a warning, after the company admitted operating articulated outfits when it did not have any trailers authorised on its licence.

West Midland Deputy Licensing Authority Roger Seymour had considered taking disciplinary action against the company after it had applied to add six trailers to its existing 14-vehicle licence. The application attracted environmental representations from local residents, who complained about early-morning noise.

Director Michael Smith said the application followed his ac

quisition of Collis Haulage. Any condition which prevented vehicles leaving before 07:00hrs would create difficulty over a contract with British Oxygen which required a vehicle to be in Derby by 07:00hrs.

A senior traffic examiner had reported that the premises could not accommodate 14 vehicles and six trailers, but could cope with nine rigids and two trailers. Smith said he would be happy with a licence for 12 vehicles and two trailers.

The DLA granted the licence on those terms, but with conditions restricting operation to between 07:00hrs and 19:30hrs from Monday to Friday and between 07:00hrs and 14:00hrs on Saturdays, limiting the number of vehicles and trailers at the premises at any one time to 11 vehicles and two trailers.

He said he was concerned that the company had continued to operate artics despite being warned on the first day of the public inquiry that it had no authority to do so.

For the company, Keith Davies said that Smith had made the fatal error of not understanding the implications of his purchase of another company. He subsequently ignored the LA's direction and the only mitigation was that he had been honest and had not tried to hide what had been done. He said Smith was now well aware of his obligations and that he was prepared to abide by the DLA's decision.

The DLA said that Smith must clearly understand that he could have revoked the company's licence. He could understand how the operation of artics arose, but the unchallenged evidence that it continued despite a clear direction from the LA was a serious matter. He said that Smith must appreciate that whatever the business pressure, he must get licence authority before making any changes. The vehicle authorisation and the conditions imposed on the licence were absolute, and if he did not comply he could lose his licence.


comments powered by Disqus