LA's 'warning' penalty not too harsh, says Tribunal
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TWO recent appeals to the Transport Tribunal have been dismissed in written Judgments.
The first concerns a decision of the West Midland LA to suspend the operator's licence of K. T. and E. J. Lewis for the use of one vehicle for one week.
The tribunal said in its judgment that the LA came to his decision because the appellants had no facilities for the inspection and maintenance of their vehicle. There was claimed to be an arrangement with a local garage but there was no written, agreement. The records used did not show definite arrangements for regular inspections and the appellants' vehicle had attracted an immediate prohibition.
The appellants did not appear at the appeal but wished the Tribunal to consider the matters set out in the notice of appeal, to which they did not wish to add.
The appellants stated in their notice that in their business of carrying pigs it was imperative that the appellant's vehicle and that vehicle only was used for the delivery of killing pigs if disease was to be avoided.
The Tribunal in coming to its decision states that it is inevitable that any direction under Section 69 should cause some degree of hardship to the operator. This the LA recognized in coming to his decision albeit only as a warning.. Nevertheless it appeared that the case warranted some action. In the Tribunal's view the penalty imposed was the minimum and the appeal was dismissed.
Appeal No. 2
The second case concerns Mr D. G. W. A itkins, whose licence was reduced by the Eastern LA by two unspecified vehicles and one specified vehicle.
The grounds on which the licence was reduced were that there had been two delayed prohibitions in the five years before the public inquiry held by the LA and that the appellant had not complied with the statements of intent regarding inspection and maintenance when he applied for his licence.
When giving his decision the LA stated that he would arrange for a further inspection of the vehicles after six months. He would need, he said, evidence over a period of at least six months that the arrangements at the time of the application reached a satisfactory standard before he would be willing to grant any further increase in the fleet.
The appellant stated in his notice of appeal that on the most recent inspection only minor faults were found and no immediate prohibitions had been made.
The Tribunal stated in its decision that if the appellant had now succeeded in bringing his arrangements up to a satisfactory standard, that was a matter for consideration by the LA, but not a ground for allowing the appeal. The appeal was therefore dismissed.