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 
TC revokes the 0-licence of 'no show' operator
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The operator failed to appear at inquiry despite being advised to do so.
A SUNDERLAND operator has been held unfit to hold an 0-licence after his vehicle had to be presented to Vosa on four occasions before an S-marked prohibition (indicating a serious lapse in maintenance) for serious brake defects could be cleared.
David Heron, trading as David Heron Demolition, did not help his case by failing to show at a Leeds public inquiry. He held a twovehicle licence.
North-Eastern Traffic Commissioner Tom Macartney said Heron had written to say he did not wish to attend but wanted to retain his licence. He had been advised it was in his best interest to attend.
Refusal and variation
Vehicle examiner Peter Thompson said the S-marked prohibition was issued on 16 January, When the vehicle was presented for clearance on three occasions in February, refusal and variation notices were issued. The prohibition was eventually cleared on 9 March.
Unsatisfactory maintenance records were being used and were not fully completed. On one occasion the stated inspection period of six weeks had been exceeded by up to 14 weeks. The last safety inspection had been on 10 October 2006 and the vehicle had covered 5,807krn before the prohibition was issued. Heron was unable to produce any driver defect reports and the pass rate at annual test was 0%. In reply to the TC, Thompson said matters were worse than when Heron was sent a warning letter in October 2004. He agreed that due to the low mileage the brake defects should have been spotted at the October inspection and that some of the defects on the variation notices were very obvious ones.
Revoking the licence with effect from midnight that night, the TC said he felt it was proportionate and necessary to do so.The state of the vehicle worried him and he had not been helped by the fact that Heron was not present. Despite requests, Heron had not provided any financial evidence.
The TC concluded that Heron was unfit to hold a licence due to his failure to attend the public inquiry, the fact he had received a warning, the missed inspections, and his use of a vehicle in a dangerous condition.
As this was the first time Heron had been called to public inquiry, the TC did not disqualify him — but if he should reapply for a licence the application would be considered at a public inquiry. •