PG9 appeal
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Both CM and Motor Transport have recently reported the move towards more prohibitions. This is all very well but we still have no effective way of appealing PG9s and, I suspect, the vast majority of these as I understand it are issued on a subjective basis by officers who receive points for the PG9s that are issued,
In a recent public inquiry a haulier faced, among a list of PG9s going back to 1992, at least one which was marked S twice. When I discussed these with a vehicle inspector he agreed with me in front of the Traffic Commissioner that neither of the defects were maintenance-related and that clearly the S notification should not have been endorsed.
What we are seeing now is a large number of public inquiries based on an allegedly bad record of PG9s when, in truth, not only was there no opportunity of appealing the PG9 but, as a matter of commercial practice, it was easier to put right the defect and get the vehicle back on the road than it was to take any step to query the PG9.
I have no doubt that the present enforcement regime will improve the quality of the road haulage industry, but against that I have considerable anxiety about the present situation in which these old PG9s are being used to beat the haulier.
Currently, I am advising all my clients to respond to every PG9 by writing a letter to the appropriate Traffic Commissioner either arguing about the circumstances in which it was issued or accepting the PG9 but offering an explanation where one is available. This will enormously increase the amount of paperwork held in the Traffic Commissioner's office—I do not expect a
response—but will at least give the operator the opportunity at a public inquiry of pointing out that an explanation was given at the time the PG9 was issued.
This is all cumbersome but seems to me the only course of action to take.
Jonathan Lawton, Transport solicitor, Manchester