Revocation for one vehicle operator reduced by Tribunal
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The penalty of revocation against the licence of one vehicle operator, Mr Levi Smith, of New Costessey, Norfolk, was reduced by the Transport Tribunal to a suspension of three months when Mr Smith's appeal was heard in London this week.
Mr N. A. C. Butcher, acting for the appellant, said that Mr Smith operated one tipper, a Ford purchased new in the spring of 1970. At a Section 69 and application hearing in August this year Mr Smith was unrepresented and Mr Butcher submitted that his lack of formal education and consequent inability to express himself adequately meant that facts put to the LA remained largely unchallenged.
Mr Butcher then outlined the history of the tipper, which was used for tar spraying and had cost £2,400, paid for in cash. Various small jobs had been carried out under warranty by the vehicle distributor in Norwich: it had only covered a nominal mileage and was considered to be in good condition.
On June 11 this year a visit by two vehicle examiners resulting from Mr Smith's application to add a second vehicle revealed a bleed screw to be loose. No GV9 was issued and the fault was rectified on the spot by Mr Smith. The second vehicle, however, the subject of the application, attracted an immediate GV9 for several brake faults. Mr Butcher pointed out that this vehicle, a Bedford. was not licensed although it had been used on the road to test tar spraying equipment recently fitted.
At the Section 69 and application hearing the licence had been revoked and the application had been refused, the Eastern LA saying that he considered the case to be a bad one, there being evidence of very little maintenance.
Mr Butcher conceded that the six-weekly inspections had not been carried out on the licensed vehicle but Mr Smith's argument had been that the vehicle was brand new, only did a nominal mileage and was regularly serviced.
Records of the work carried out by the garage were allowed at the appeal although they had not been presented as evidence at the original hearing.
Mr G.D. Squibb, QC, president of the Tribunal, said that the Tribunal agreed with the LA — the case was a bad one. Statements of intent regarding maintenance had not been fulfilled although it was understood they were now. In a letter from the garage it was stated that Mr Smith had been advised that he should have his vehicle regularly inspected but Mr Smith had declined saying that the vehicle was still under warranty.
In the circumstances the Tribunal was reluctant to put a man out of business and therefore decided to suspend the licence for three months. The refusal of the additional application stands.