Massive evidence of neglect, so Tribunal dismisses appeal
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The Transport Tribunal, in a written judgment, has dismissed an appeal by Selby Morton and Sons Ltd, of Wooler, Northumberland, against the Northern Licensing Authority's decision to reduce the number of authorized vehicles to 10. The company holds an operator's licence for 23 vehicles and nine trailers, had been operating 15 vehicles and six trailers, and had applied to increase the vehicle total to 17.
The LA had initiated proceedings following a prohibition notice being placed on a Selby Morton vehicle, bringing the total to 38 prohibitions issued between October 17 1967 and August 14 1972. The appellants had also been warned by the LA about an overloading offence and an apparent failure to fulfil statements concerning maintenance.
At the public inquiry Mr Campbell Wardlaw, for the company, said that, of the 38 prohibitions, 27 were delayed and only 11 immediate; relying on the wording of Section 184(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1960, he indicated that in most of the cases there were no defects involving immediate risk to public safety.
Mr Campbell Wardlaw had said that the LA had been mistaken in his approach to the proper penalty because in the LA's decision there was a phrase: "the distinction between immediate and delayed prohibitions has gone long ago, ever since operator's licensing came into effect".
The Tribunal says that, while this phrase was not perhaps a precise state ment of the law, the Licensing Authority had expressed himself accurately when he went on to say: "The delay prohibition might well be in relation to what can only be regarded as sheer unadulterated neglect to maintain and inspect a vehicle, whereas the immediate prohibition might be sheer bad luck, something that may have happened in the previous 10 minutes".
The Tribunal considers that few, if any, of the 38 prohibitions appear to relate to "sheer bad luck". The defects listed in the delayed prohibitions alone amounted to massive evidence of a failure to maintain the appellants' vehicles properly, and this, coupled with lack of proper inspection, justified the LA's action.