AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Revocation for two operators after failure to appear

2nd February 1973
Page 42
Page 42, 2nd February 1973 — Revocation for two operators after failure to appear
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• Two Birmingham hauliers, both licensed to operate one vehicle each, had their licences completely revoked in Birmingham on Tuesday after the deputy West Midland LA. Mr J. Shuifiebotham, had heard that although in both cases operating conditions had drastically changed since the licences were granted neither operator had come forward to explain how they intended to maintain their vehicles in the future.

In the case of Mr S. C. Walters of Birmingham, the LA heard that when the operator was granted his licence it was with the understanding that he would be employed by RMC (Midlands) Ltd, which would maintain and inspect his vehicle.

However, after being notified by RMC (Midlands) Ltd, the deputy LA summoned him to the inquiry under Section 69 and decided to revoke the licence when the operator failed to attend.

Mr K. F. Jones and J. Richard, trading as R. J. Metals of Birmingham, also had their 0 licence revoked after failing to attend the inquiry. It was stated that on numerous occasions attempts had been made by DoE vehicle examiners to inspect the vehicle operated by R. J. Metals, and its depot, maintenance facilities and arrangements. Both operators, however, had completely ignored the vehicle examiner's requests and had, in fact, changed the operating base without notifying the LA of the location of the new base.


comments powered by Disqus