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
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186 
Firm saves its one-vehicle licence by taking 'impressive' steps
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A TEESSIDE property development firm that admitted its maintenance regime was a "shambles" has been refused its application for an extra vehicle and issued with a warning — but has escaped revocation.
North-Eastern DeputyTraffic Commissioner Mark Flinch I iffe had considered action against the restricted licence held by Stockton-on-Tees-based Mandate Commercial, together with its application to increase the authorisation from one vehicle to two.
Vehicle examiner Stephen Cave said he had carried out a maintenance investigation in April following the issue of a weight prohibition to a vehicle in January that was not displaying a valid 0-licence identity disc. The vehicle's test certificate had expired at the end of November 2006.
Only four inspection records could be produced and there were gaps of 10 and 23 weeks between inspections.There was only one driver defect report in the previous 12 months and no evidence that defects reported by the maintenance contractor had been repaired. No forward planning system was in use.
Transport manager Paula Cooper said following the vehicle examiner's visit she had been put in charge of transport,The firm had purchased a new,short-bodied 18-tonne vehicle to avoid the risk of overloading.
Director David Harriman said the company had held a licence for about two years, and that he had not appreciated the responsibilities that came with holding an 0-licence at the time The DTC said when he saw the vehicle examiner's evidence he had thought that this was a "scruffy oneman band operation" instead of a multi-million-pound company. Harriman agreed it had been a shambles.
The DTC added that the vehicle examiner's evidence would normally mean revocation, but the range of documents put before him was "impressive" and it was a system that should work.