AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Penalty of bus war

26th January 1989
Page 24
Page 24, 26th January 1989 — Penalty of bus war
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?

• A bus war in east Kent has Led to a three-month ban on the registration of new services by Chisholm Coach Travel's boss George Chisholm.

Chisholm appeared before South Eastern Traffic Commissioner Brigadier Michael Turner to answer allegations by East Kent Road Car that his company had failed to operate its services as registered.

Counter-allegations by Chisholm, that East Kent and its subsidiary Marinair Coaches harassed his services, operated dangerously, blocked bus stops and operated off-route, were found to be unsubstantiated by the Commissioner.

Geoffery Jones for East Kent alleged that Chisholm had failed to keep the registered route on the Westgate( Margate/Ramsgate service, had omitted legs of the Ramsgate to Newington service, and had run his services early in hope of gaining passengers.

Chishohn maintained that sonic of the allegations against him arose because of confusion between his tour vehicles and registered services. He admitted that buses had not always stuck rigidly to registered routes, but said this was because of heavy traffic.

Summing up, Turner said he was satisfied that Chisholm was guilty of numerous and recent breaches. Though he could not ignore the situation, he would not exercise his powers to order the repayment of fuel duty rebate grant. Instead he would impose a conditon on•Chisholm's licence prohibiting him from registering any further local services for a period of three months.

That would give Chisholm the opportunity to put his house in order and to ensure his operators run in accordance with the regulations.