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 
TWO LICENCE APPLICANTS WARNED
Page 69
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WARNINGS regarding the import ance of observing licence conditions were, on Monday, administered by the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, Mr. Gleeson E. Robinson, to two applicants.
When Messrs. W. W. Drinkwater, 5, Goodson Road, London, N.W.10, applied for the renewal of their licence, Mr. Robinson stated that the firm, who were hauliers of building and road. making materials, had not E observed the condition of their licenee requiring the proper maintenance of vehicles. Fourteen prohibition notices had been imposed in connection with 11 lorries.
For the applicants, it was explained that a number of the older vehicles was being replaced at a total cost of .0,000, and that, on account of the rough work which the fleet carried out: damage was snore likely to be caused than would be the case with normal usage. The firm employed a day and night maintenance staff.
A vehicle .examiner gave eVidexice to the effect that the condition of some of the vehicles was dangerous, although he admitted that repairs had subsequently been made. He agreed that the firm provided proper maintenance facilities, but contended that full advantage was not taken of them.
' Mr. Robinson pointed out that this was a case of the greatest importance. He deferred his decision pending the sobrnission by Messrs. Drinkwater of a suitable scheme of vehicle maintenance to the certifying officer.
Another applicant, who admitted having, on one occasion operated outside the radius permitted under his B licence, and having omitted details of the journey from his record sheet, was severely reprimanded. Mr. Robinson would not accept the applicant's explanation that he construed the condition as meaning that he could pick up goods within a 20-mile radius and carry them beyond that distance, but could not bring goods from points outside the 20-mile radius. The licence was renewed, With a caution as to future conduct.