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 
Licence at stake but operator still unprepared for hearing
Page 55
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The Eastern deputy LA, Mr Gerald Kidner, told a two—vehicle operator last week that it was beyond his comprehension that with his licence and living at stake he could come to a Section 69 inquiry totally unprepared.
Before the deputy LA was Chelmsford Waste Paper Co Ltd, Boreham, Chelmsford, represented by its managing director. Mr Stewart Sharer.
Mr Kidner said that the company had been granted a conditional licence for two vehicles at a public inquiry in July last year when it changed its trading name. The firm had previously had three vehicles but this had been reduced by the LA following three GV9s in three years. The LA had been told of arrangements by the company to take on a fitter and had issued a conditional licence on this evidence.
In April, this year, said Mr Kidner, a vehicle examiner saw the two vehicles. One had just passed its annual test and was clear of defects, the second had 17 defects and received an immediate 0V9.
Mr Sharer said he had bought a new vehicle in January and used the old one as a standby only. His driver/fitter had concentrated on the new vehicle and ignored the old one.
Mr Sharer felt he had been let down by the fitter and also his manager who was in charge of transport.
After the GV9, said Mr Sharer, he had come to an arrangement with a garage to look after the vehicle. He could produce no records. The deputy LA asked Mr Sharer if he realized the seriousness of appearing before the Court which had the power to remove his licence and, in effect, his living.
Mr Kid= added that despite a very fair warning by the LA last year matters
had not improved. The fitter had clearly ignored the old vehicle and it had not apparently been inspected since the end of 1972. After the GV9 it had been put in the hands of a garage but had failed an annual test after that. Indeed, said Mr Kidner, the garage had said it would not pass. For all this no one had checked the situation, he added.
The deputy LA said he would give Mr Sharer the last chance he had asked for. He would curtail the licence by one vehicle and, being still unsatisfied with maintenance arrangements, he would further curtail by suspension for three months the second vehicle to give the operator time to satisfy him that proper arrangements would be made.
He ordered that detailed evidence of arrangements be sent to his office.