AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Ban teeth blunted b

19th November 1987
Page 6
Page 6, 19th November 1987 — Ban teeth blunted b
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?

• Administrative bungling is delaying attempts by a London borough to prosecute hauliers for allegedly breaking the controversial London Lorry Ban.

As Commercial Motor closed for press this week one of the hauliers, Lincolnshire-based Spalding Haulage said that it had still not received a summons to appear in court and knew nothing of the intended prosecution — although copies of the summons were circulated to the press some 10 days ago.

The prosecution by Camden Council is very much a test case. Although the original ban came into effect in January 1986, no operator has been convicted of breaking it.

Camden's case has already been postponed twice due to what are described as "administrative difficulties" experienced by the council and its advisory body, the London Strategic Policy Unit. The case is now scheduled to be heard by Hampstead magistrates on 10 December.

If the prosecution is suc cessful it could open the way for other London boroughs to clamp down on hauliers which are not exempted from the ban.

Both Spalding Haulage and Staffordshire-based J Oldham (Stonemasons) are alleged to have driven lorries on Kilburn High Road in July without exemption permits. J Oldham received its summons last week, but there is some confusion as to whether a summons has actually been sent to Spalding Haulage.

Enforcement of the ban, which was introduced by the now-defunct Greater London Council, has proved a contentious issue. The Metropolitan Police maintain that enforcement "will be commensurate


comments powered by Disqus