Appeal dismissed after revocation
Page 17
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN APPEAL against the decision of the West Midland LA to revoke the 0 licence of J. E. L. Tibbetts and Co, demolition contractor, of Brierley Hill, was dismissed by the Transport Tribunal last week. Giving the Tribunal's decision, the president, Mr G. D. Squibb said that the operator had been warned in October 1974 that if the result of the vehicle inspection to be made in six months' time did not prove satisfactory, then the operator would face serious consequences. The LA was, therefore, quite right to revoke the licence after the further inspection proved unsatisfactory.
Earlier, Mr Michael Carless, appearing for the company, had suggested to the Tribunal that the LA's decision had been somewhat harsh.
After the LA had reduced the operator's margin in October 1974 and warned him of the consequences of nonimprovement and the projected further vehicle inspection, the vehicle examiner had chosen to inspect the vehicle after it had been "on site" continuously for a month. The operator had taken the view that because there was no immediate danger to the public it was not necessary then to inspect and maintain it to 0-licence standards. That was also the reason that when the vehicle examiner inspected the vehicle there was no curr plating and testing certifies Mr Tibbetts had apprecia that before the vehicle co be used on a road it would quire plating and testing, it would be necessary to the vehicle in proper order fore this could be done.
Despite the protracted per on site and the defects which a prohibition notice imposed, the vehicle was j sented at the testing staI for removal of the GV9 there had been no difficult} having this removed.
Although the operator said that he would relinqi the vehicle, this had been in a fit of pique and the veh was really necessary for operation of the business.
Replying to Mr Squibb at the necessity for an operat licence if the vehicle was tinuany on site, Mr Car explained that the onperiod preceding the inspec was unusual and the operat contracts usually called for moval of demolition mat( to tips.
Replying to Sir Wilfred IN ton, Mr Carless said that prohibited vehicle had beer moved to the company's mises for repair by towing, the repairs had been car out by the operator and driver using his own facili When dismissing the api the president pointed out if the operator was prep to improve matters there nothing to prevent him i making an application fc fresh licence.