1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136 
Appeal deferred
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HE Essex Demolition Conractors had its appeal against
'evocation set aside this meek because its solicitor did iot have sufficient informaion on the undertakings liven to the Licencing ‘uthority for the original 0 icence application in 1974.
During a routine inspection ifter the company's application or renewal of its national )perators' licence, the Eastern fraffic Area LA considered that -naintenance facilities and procKiures were not up to standard ti-id that certain undertakings lad been breeched.
The company's solicitor said hat it had been in business for 15 years and had never been he subject of a previous pro
The company claimed to lave an effective six-weekly in;pection and drivers defect -eport procedure. All service Nork other than routine maintelance was passed to the local pacage. This was contrary to the nformation given on the orginal application where the ocal garage would carry out 3Iternative inspections and all -najor service work.