Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Three Midlands operators in licence trouble

23rd July 1971, Page 27
23rd July 1971
Page 27
Page 27, 23rd July 1971 — Three Midlands operators in licence trouble
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?

Keywords : Law / Crime

• The West Midland LA, Mr J. Else, in Birmingham on Monday exercised his power under Section 69 against two owner-operators and a fruit farmer.

One of the cases heard concerned Mr Mohammed Akran. a Wellington owneroperator who held an 0 licence authorizing one vehicle. Mr Akran had been called to the inquiry following an inspection visit by a DoE vehicle examiner on May 24 when his vehicle was issued with an immediate GV9. The examiner, Mr C. Pitts, said at the inquiry that other than bills and invoices, no records relating to vehicle maintenance had been produced at the inspection, and he was informed at this time that repairs were carried out at various local garages.

In defence of his licence Mr Akran stated that between October 1970 and July 1971 he had spent nearly £600 on vehicle repairs and maintenance, and had now made arrangements with a garage to carry out all necessary work on his vehicle. The LA decided to suspend Mr Akran's licence throughout the month of August. Another owner-operator, Mr H. Jones, of Telford, also had his licence authorizing one vehicle, with a margin of one vehicle to be acquired, suspended under similar circumstances. After hearing evidence given by a vehicle examiner in which it was stated that the vehicle authorized had been issued with an immediate GV9 on May 26, Mr Else decided to suspend the licence throughout August and September and also to remove the one-vehicle margin. The court heard that the GV9 issued on May 26 came about after an accident when the police requested that a vehicle examiner should inspect the vehicle.

At the same inquiry W. Timmins and Sons Ltd, Dudley, had its 0 licence in respect of two vehicles and one vehicle to be acquired, curtailed when Mr Else removed the margin of one vehicle. The company, a wholesale fruit farm, had been called to the hearing following an inspection of its vehicle maintenance facilities and arrangements on March 1. The examiner who carried out the inspection, Mr L. Edwards, said that the vehicle was found to be in reasonable condition and maintenance facilities adequate for two vehicles.

A director of the company. Mr W. Timmins, told the LA that as his present premises were under a demolition order, the company would be moving to a new base with improved maintenance facilities and he added that at the present time the firm did not require the margin of one vehicle.

Curtailing the licence, Mr Else said that if the new premises proved satisfactory there was no reason why the company should not apply for additional vehicles.

10-vehicle margin removed

• The Metropolitan LA, Mr D. I. R. Muir, suspended one vehicle from the licence of Robinsons Removal Specialists Ltd when the company appeared before the LA last week under Section 69. The company which had a licence authorizing 31 vehicles of which 21 were in possession had been called as a result of the imposition of one immediate and six delayed GV9s. The total penalty imposed by the LA was the removal of the margin of 10 vehicles and the suspension for a period of one month of one vehicle in possession.

comments powered by Disqus