AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Owner's absence was wrong

1st January 1998, Page 12
1st January 1998
Page 12
Page 12, 1st January 1998 — Owner's absence was wrong
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?

• A driver was said to have tied a rope round an axle after an air bag burst on a vehicle belonging to Welshpool haulier James Potter in order to get the vehicle home from the Continent, when Potter appeared at a Cardiff disciplinary inquiry.

Potter, who holds a licence for eight vehicles and two trailers, was subsequently prosecuted for using a vehicle in a dangerous condition and was fined £400.

For Potter, Jonathan Lawton said that when the suspension failed the driver had taken it on himself to "cobble it together" to get home, instead of reporting what had occurred to his employer. As a result, the driver concerned had been dismissed. Potter had not attended the magistrates court hearing, a decision that was clearly wrong, said Lawton, as he would no doubt have received an absolute discharge in the circumstances. Instead, he had been involved in further expense.

Potter said that he had been too busy to attend the magistrates court.

Taking no action, South Wales Traffic Commissioner John Mervyn Pugh said that it was clear that the driver had let Potter down. It was the old story. When the vehicle was stopped, a plausible defence was not put forward and nothing was said to the enforcement officer. It was also silly not to attend the court hearing when there was a plausible explanation that could have been put forward. It would be unjust for him to take disciplinary action but the message to operators when things went wrong which was not their fault was to tell the enforcement officer, and it was then most unlikely that proceedings would be brought.


comments powered by Disqus