AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Three operators dealt with in their absence

1st December 1972
Page 34
Page 34, 1st December 1972 — Three operators dealt with in their absence
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?

• Three operators who failed to attend the South Eastern Licensing Authority's public inquiry at Eastbourne last week had their cases dealt with in their absence.

C. G. Talbot, of Hailsham, who was applying for a new licence, had incurred an immediate prohibition on his vehicle when it was examined by the vehicle examiner and he had his application refused. R. C. Bourne, also of Hailsham, who had been summoned under Section 69 had his licence revoked; the vehicle examiner said that he had had to examine Mr Bourne's vehicles outside his house — he had no premises and the records were inadequate.

Mr Bourne had told the vehicle examiner that he was sufficiently skilled to maintain his own vehicles and this the examiner doubted. The prohibition had been imposed on his vehicle for four items, one of which involved tyre wear above the legal limit.

Mrs S. A. James, of St Leonard's-on-Sea, had three vehicles removed from her fivevehicle licence because of bad maintenance and convictions for using a vehicle under prohibition, drivers' records offences and two offences of overloading. Her premises were unsatisfactory and had been made the subject of an order from the local authority prohibiting their use for commercial vehicle operation. Application to add three vehicles to her vehicle licence was refused.