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 
Licence granted and revoked — all in three weeks
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Mr R. C. Richards, whose psv licence for one vehicle was granted and revoked within three weeks by the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioners, has had his appeal dismissed by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
At a public inquiry in January, the DoE's Inspector, Mr F. A. Adams, heard that Mr Richards first applied for a licence in June 1971. This vehicle proved defective and five months later was exchanged for another vehicle without being licensed. The second vehicle was also defective but was finally licensed in February 1972, During July 1972 this was exchanged for a third vehicle; a number of defects were found, but the vehicle was finally licensed on August 16 1972.
At a public sitting on October 3, following reports of the inspections of his third vehicle and of his general maintenance facilities, the Commissioners decided to revoke his licence in view of Mr Richards's inspection record and what was judged to be a general casualness about maintenance.
Mr Richards claimed that the Commissioners had given undue weight to the evidence of the vehicle examiner. The Inspector accepted that the proceedings in October 1972 were unsatisfactory both to the Commissioners and Mr Richards. "More emphasis on the fact that at the time of its first inspection the third vehicle was under repair, unlicensed. and maybe not required for service until the following school term, would have put the examiner's account of the defects found in better perspective. Some of the examiner's statements about maintenance were incorrect or inconsistent with the evidence," he stated in a written decision.
' He added that although more weight could have been given to Mr Richards's attempts to improve his standards, on balance the Commissioners' decision should be upheld.
In endorsing his Inspector's decision, the Secretary of State commented: "If the appellant now feels able to present evidence that the standard of his vehicle and the facilities for its maintenance can satisfy the requirements to a fresh licence the Secretary of State would see merit in the Commissioners hearing any new application at an early date."