ot competent with he, so why four?
Page 13
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ORKSHIRE Licensing Authority Maj Gen V. H. J. Carpenter refused an operator's application to extend his 0-licence m one to four vehicles.
Vincent Wilkinson, trading Wilkinson Brothers of Skipn, was said to have failed to rove his competence with ne vehicle, and he told the censing Authority that he ow really required only one dditional vehicle.
Vehicle examiner Kenneth rigg said that when he visited Wilkinson in July he found he specified vehicle partly smantled and was told that it had not been operated since February, when another vehicle had been acquired.
Mr Bigg examined the new vehicle and issued a defect notice for three minor faults, gaining the impression that that vehicle was in daily use. He was also told that there was a third vehicle and he examined that later in the month.
Five defects were found and a delayed prohibition imposed. The condition of the vehicle suggested a lack of maintenance. The original inspection arrangements appeared to have broken down some 18 months previously when the commercial garage undertaking the work had moved its premises.
Mr Wilkinson said he had now made arrangements with another garage to carry out regular inspections.
Refusing the application Maj Gen Carpenter said Mr Wilkinson had been given the chance to prove he was a competent operator with one vehicle, but he had let matters slip badly until the vehicle examiner's visit.
When the commercial garage moved its premises, Mr Wilkinson should have informed the Traffic Area office that there had been a change in the circumstances.
The Licensing Authority did not believe he would be justified in granting additional vehicles for the moment. However, he would be prepared to consider a further application for a second vehicle if there was a satisfactory report from the vehicle examiner in six months' time.