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
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190 
TC sticks with decision to revoke pallet carrier
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
One vehicle was "a danger to members of the public" and safety systems were completely absent. Mike Jewell reports.
A PA!] .FT operator has had its three-vehicle licence revoked despite the Transport Tribunal asking North-Eastern Traffic Commissioner Tom Macartney to reconsider his ruling after a postal delay cast doubt on the original decision. Offences included a missing accelerator pedal. no MoT and driving without a valid licence.
In addition, Gateshead-based Michael Ker, trading as First Quote Pallets, was disqualified from holding an 0-licence for 12 months.
The Transport Tribunal had directed the TC to reconsider the revocation after being told that Ker had never received the letter calling him to a public inquiry (CM 12 April), Evidence was given that on 3 July 2006 a vehicle received an S-marked prohibition for an illegal tyre and a missing accelerator pedal with the arm sticking in the down position. Ker had been driving the vehicle without a valid driving licence.
A maintenance investigation on 7 July 2006 found there was no forward planning system. None of the vehicles being used had a valid MoT, were being subjected to any form of safety inspection, or had received any form of safety inspection before being taken into servi ce. Th ere were simply no systems in place at any time. Tachograph calibrations were overdue and there was no system available for drivers to record vehicle defects. When Ker was again visited in April 2007, only live inspection records for three vehicles could be produced.
Ker said he had driven the vehicle in July 2006 because he had been threatened with a 113,000 penalty by a contractor if he did not carry out a particular job. He took a risk and drove the vehicle in a dangerous condition and without a licence.
Danger to the public
The TC said the prohibition notice issued to the vehicle on 3 July 2006 was so serious that the vehicle was -a danger to members of the public". The only way in which the vehicle could be driven was if the driver ducked below the level of the dashboard to operate the throttle with his hand. Ker had said he was adept at manipulating the throttle with his foot, but the vehicle examiner showed it was necessary to use a hand to release the defective throttle on the floor.
That prohibition notice and the condition of the vehicle were so serious that the TC found it necessary to revoke the licence on that count alone.
Ker had operated from when the licence was granted until when he was stopped by Vosa, and had done so without an MoT on any of the vehicles, without tachograph calibrations, without safety inspections, without driver defect reports and without any systems in place. •