1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160 
One flaw in six year record
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A single marked prohibition in six years of
■ .* trading led to a North Yorkshire owner-driver appearing at a Leeds disciplinary inquiry. Leyburn-based Mark Sullivan, trading as Mark Sullivan Haulage and holding a one-vehicle licence, had been called before the North Eastern Deputy Traffic Commissioner Patrick Mulvenna.
Vehicle examiner Geoffrey Flattis said that in November 2002 he carried out a maintenance investigation. The vehicle was in a generally unsatisfactory condition including a number of brake defects and there was one loose wheelnut In reply to Jim Marsh, for Sullivan, Flattis said they were essentially talking about a brake not operating on one wheel because the slack adjuster was slipping.
Flattis endorsed the prohibition 'S as it was a prearranged inspection, a garage had inspected the vehicle only five days before and a fitter had quickly checked the vehicle over before he examined it Sullivan said that he had held his current licence for a year, previously having held a licence in the South Eastern area since 1997. The vehicle had been fairly old and had recently been replaced and the tyres had been changed only hours before the vehicle examiner's visit. He felt that he had been extremely unlucky that day and was absolutely satisfied wtth his maintenance contractor.
The DIG commented that the vehicle could have been in an accident if it had been on the road in that condition, and anyone involved would not have regarded it as bad luck.
Marsh pointed out that Sullivan had never been to a Public Inquiry before and had never received a prohibition before. Sullivan worked solely for one customer and would lose his contract if off the road for any period.
The DIG issued a formal warning, saying it was a curious case and revocation or suspension would be disproportionate.