Curtailed haulier granted additional vehicles
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A company whose licence was curtailed )y 50 per cent to leave three vehicles last September was also given a stern warning is to its future maintenance arrangements.
• subsequent appeal to the Transport tribunal was lost but last Friday the company, D. G. W. Aitkens Ltd, of Bury St Edmunds (Suffolk) successfully defended a hearing under Section 69 and won its application for four vehicles to be added to the licence.
Giving evidence, a vehicle examiner said that he had visited the company's premises in February when he had examined three vehicles. Of these only one was in good )rder; a second vehicle was given a delayed GV9 while the third would have been given GV9 but for work being carried out while he was there. He agreed that the company had in many respects made improvements since the last inquiry but felt there was still room for further improvements.
Mr D. Aitkens, answering questions put 3y his representative, Mr A. Hughes, told VIr Gerald Kidner, the Eastern deputy LA, :hat his vehicles were employed on very wavy work and were often drag loaded in )its.
Pursuing this point Mr Hughes suggested hat where an operator's fleet was curtailed, ill too often the practical result was that the emaining vehicles were called upon to do is much work as the full fleet had formerly lone with the risk of their attracting vohibitions due to over-use. Replying, the leputy LA said that this was certainly not he intention of the Act. "The whole point of he system is to see that vehicles are not a danger on the roads. Where vehicles are used for extra heavy work, it is the clear duty of the operator to see that they get all the attention necessary."
Accepting Mr Hughes submission that the company had made many improvements, the deputy LA said that no direction would be made under Section 69. However, he warned that this might well be the company's last chance and it was up to them to see that the undertakings given were adhered to. Mr Kidner ordered that the vehicles, inspection records and premises be inspected in six months time.
As to the application for four extra vehicles he would allow this as the vehicles were to be new ones and evidence had been given to prove that they would be under an inspection and maintenance contract with the supplying garage.