AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Bad history for a small firm

1st June 2000, Page 16
1st June 2000
Page 16
Page 16, 1st June 2000 — Bad history for a small firm
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?

Steven Morris,

I0e based in

Otley, West Yorkshire, lost his licence when he failed to appear at a Leeds disciplinary inquiry before the North Eastern Deputy Traffic Commissioner Mark Hindiliffe.

Morris, who traded as SDIVI Haulage, held a licence for five vehicles and five trailers, with three vehicles and three trailers specified.

The DTC said over the past five years four convictions had been recorded against Morris, with five immediate and two delayed prohibitions, a significant prohibition history for a small operation.

In October 1996 Morris was convicted of using a vehicle without an 0-licence or vehicle excise licence, and of the fraudulent use of an excise licence. He was fined o o and ordered to pay 11,506.67 back duty, and was sent a warning letter. He appeared at a public inquiry in April 1997 following an unsatisfactory maintenance report. In December 1999 he was fined £200 with 130 costs for using a vehicle with a defective speed limiter.

Five prohibitions had been issued since the last public inquiry, four in 1999, including one for a significant maintenance failure. The defects listed on this prohibition had not been noted by the operator when the vehicle was inspected three days previously, said the DTC.

The most recent was issued in January, and that was followed by a maintenance investigation. There was no wall planner in use and few driver defect reports. Inspection records were available only up to last August for two vehicles, with nothing to support Morris' claims that one had been off the road and the other hired out.

There were no covered workshops at Morris's base, and he had denied using the site for maintenance. However, his maintenance contractor had told the vehicle examiner that maintenance was carried out in Morris's yard, and the examiner concluded there were no suitable facilities.

Furthermore, financial information had been requested but not supplied.

Tags

Locations: Otley, Leeds

comments powered by Disqus