AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Suffolk haulier's licence revoked

24th November 1972
Page 30
Page 30, 24th November 1972 — Suffolk haulier's licence revoked
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?

• Two companies who, for the second time, failed to appear for public inquiry, were at Ipswich last week, dealt with by the Eastern LA, Mr H. E. Robson, in their absence. One licence was revoked and in the second case, a Section 64 application, a licence was refused.

In the first case a general haulage company, W. H. Whiting and Sons Ltd, Woodbridge, Suffolk, had its licence revoked under Section 69.

Vehicle examiner Russell Goodwin, giving evidence, said he had visited the operator's premises in June and had placed a GV9 on one vehicle for "a whole series of long standing defects". A second vehicle specified on the licence was being used as a store and he understood this was not being used on public roads. Earlier in October 1970, when he had inspected two vehicles he had issued GV9s on both. On neither visit were records or inspection certificates available and the company had terminated a service arrangement with a garage made at the time the licence was issued.

Whiting's facilities were insufficient for maintenance and the whole place was very untidy, said Mr Goodwin.

Mr Robson said the company had been called to a public inquiry on October 20 but had fitted to appear. Since it had again failed to come he concluded that it had nothing to say in mitigation and he would therefore revoke the licence from 14 days after the hearing.

In the second case Halesworth Engineering Ltd, a Suffolk company, also failed to appear. Mr Robson said that having failed to turn up for a previous hearing the company had been sent a transcript of the hearing when he had had doubts about the inspection and maintenance procedures. Since he had not heard of any reason for the company's failure to attend, its application for a licence for two vehicles was refused.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus