AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Every truck failed checks

20th October 2005
Page 37
Page 37, 20th October 2005 — Every truck failed checks
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?

Illegal use of agricultural tractors and multiple prohibitions led to revocation for operator who "didn't realise".

AN OPERATOR faces the loss of its licence after it was found that every one of its vehicles stopped at roadside checks in the past two years has received a prohibition.

Breaches of environmental conditions, maintenance problems and the unlawful use of agricultural tractors contributed to the revocation of the licence held by Philip Barty and the delayed grant of a licence in the name of a limited company formed by Barty to take over the business with a move of operating centre.

Barty, who held a licence for four vehicles and four trailers based at Bardwell, Bury St Edmunds, and P Barty Ltd, which was seeking a licence for four vehicles and three trailers based at Stanton, had been called before the Eastern Traffic Commissioner Geoffrey Simms.

Neighbourhood complaints Neighbours of the Bardwell site complained that conditions relating to the way vehicles exited, where they were parked and a limit of three vehicles had been breached. They also complained about the use of large agricultural tractors hauling trailers laden with construction plant,scrap metal and other materials.

Vehicle examiner Paul Barley said five prohibitions had been issued since a warning letter in January. Every vehicle checked at the roadside in the past two years had been prohibited. Last December an agricultural tractor was given an immediate prohibition and the trailer an S' marked prohibition. In February the combination was again seen on the road. The prohibitions had not been cleared and some 4,318km had been travelled since issue. One vehicle had failed its annual test in July 2004 and again in July 2005 when a prohibition was issued.

B arty said he was a fanner, plant hire contractor and topsoil and aggregates merchant. He had not realised that prohibitions on agricultural tractors and trailers had the same force as they had for lorries. He had dispensed with the services of his previous maintenance contractor because of dissatisfaction with its work. The majority of the trailers hauled by the agricultural tractors were farm trailers used to transport straw, grass, carrots and ploughs between his farms.

Revoking Barty's licence and delaying the grant of a licence for two vehicles and two trailers to the company for two months, the TC said Barty had consistently failed to meet the required maintenance standards. The use of mechanically-defective agricultural vehicles on the road by a licensed operator could not be excused. Neither could the use of the prohibited tractor and trailer.

There was no evidence that the agricultural tractors actually carried agricultural produce. 'Ibe fact that they were usually associated with farming and forestry did not prevent them being used for other purposes. Barty had claimed they were used on site work. but accepted they had to drive on the public road to gain access to the sites. Consequently, he was unable to claim exemption from 0-licensing and that meant he had been using more than the authorised number of vehicles and trailers. •


comments powered by Disqus