Blow that whistle!
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
.w ith reference to the letter headed "Blow the whistle" (CM 20-26 November), this driver should not shirk his responsibility and must report this company to the DOT without delay.
It is unfortunate that he finds himself in the middle of a situation like this, but isn't this the exact case that has been argued for in this industry for years? We are dealing with a cowboy outfit. Regardless of whether the company operates new or old vehicles, operating without an 0-licence is a cardinal sin—it is an illegal business.
What of the large organisation that is contracting this company? I'm sure that the words "drop" and "hot brick" would be appropriate.
As for the insurance aspect, isn't there a clause in all policies that states something along the lines of `'having the proper and necessary licence(s)"? I would think that, should the worst happen, any insurance company would take at least three steps backwards and quickly disassociate itself from the offender.
There could be valid reasons for operating without a licence, but for a number of years? Maybe the term "person of good repute" comes into play.
would seriously suggest to this driver that he should think twice before climbing aboard and starting the engine on another possible tragedy.
SK Bradbury, Sandringham Transport, Walsall, West Midlands.