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
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178 
Tribunal rules that firm deserved a second chance
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A REVOKED operator has won an appeal to the Transport Tribunal which ruled that North Western Traffic Commissioner Beverley Bell had ignored systems improvements and had been wrong not to adjourn the hearing because the director was sick.
Last November Bell revoked the five-vehicle licence held by Farnworth, Bolton-based Al Madina Transport and disqualified the company and its two directors from holding an 0-licence indefinitely. She concluded that the company had lost its repute. The TC said vehicles had not been kept fit and serviceable and drivers had failed to comply with the hours and tachograph rules.
Quashing Bell's orders, the Tribunal said that as there was no threat to public safety the IC had been wrong to refuse to adjourn the hearing when it was clear that director Nazir Hussain was suffering from the effects of injuries he had received in a road acci dent. Hussain had been given the choice of attending the hearing or losing the company's licence.
The Tribunal said that the TC's finding that the company was either unwilling or unable to adequately address the negative features was not borne out by the evidence. Hussain had taken steps to change the transport manager when deficiencies were identified and did so promptly.The new transport manager took successful steps to tackle the problems.
In addition the IC did not appear to note that the majority of the negative features related to events prior to October 2002, whereas the positive features were current and demonstrated that the company was both willing and able to address what had gone wrong.
The matters of concern were historical whereas the present conduct of the business should not give rise to concern.