Revocation and Suspensions Follow W. Midland ' Blitz '
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ONE haulier had a vehicle removed from his Contract A licence and six others had one vehicle suspended for up to one month when the West Midland Licensing Authority, Mr. J. Else, dealt with the first batch of operators appearing before him at Birmingham on Monday as a result of his " blitz " campaign to improve the standards of maintenance in his area.
He heard complaints against 11 hauliers, A, B, C and contract licence holders, who were representative of all sections of the industry. Nine of the inquiries were heard under Section 178 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, and two were heard as renewal applications. It is understood that starting in September special disciplinary hearings will be heard once a month.
Before hearing the cases, Mr. Else said: " Several times recently I have stated publicly that instructions have been given to my vehicle examiners to Nang to my notice any vehicles in this area upon which they have had to place an immediate prohibition when the defects not only involved an immediate risk to public safety, but also when they could readily have been detected by inspection and were indicative of serious neglect and/or wilful disregard of the normal standards of maintenance.
"In other words, I have asked to be informed of the worst of a bad bunch of vehicles so that I may bring the licence holders concerned, large or small, to a public inquiry to consider whether I should exercise my powers of revoking, suspending or curtailing their carriers' licences."
Mr. Else said that the reasons for this action could be found in his annual report to the Minister of Transport in which he stated that the percentage rate of prohibitions issued had been rising annually, with a jump of 10 per cent that year, and had reached 57 per cent.
Mr. Else quoted some additional figures which he described as "very disturbing ".
In the past three years the overall percentage of prohibitions, immediate and delayed, had risen from 43 to 57 per cent, while the percentage of immediate prohibitions rose from 8-5 to 12.3 per cent. In the past three months 2,363 vehicles had been examined in roadside checks and prohibitions placed on 1,515—or 64 per cent of them-222 being immediate and 1,293 delayed.
He made it clear that the disciplinary action he took in no way precluded the operators from prosecutions before the Justices.
Evidence given at the inquiries showed that all complaints against the operators resulted from roadside checks. In each case immediate prohibitions were placed on the vehicles. The majority of them had been, or were in the process of, undertaking arduous building site and tipping work.
. This is a summary of the complaints and penalties imposed:
A. Neely Ltd,, Birmingham : One vehicle suspended for one month. Evidence was given of 13 defects, five of them involving immediate danger to the public.
W. Allport and Son Ltd., Sutton Coldfield : One vehicle suspended for one month. Five major defects were listed by the vehicle examiner.
A. Adams and Son Transport (Shareshill) Ltd., Wolverhampton : One vehicle suspended for 14 days. There were 12 defects, four of them major.
W, J. Whittall and Son Ltd., Birmingham: One vehicle suspended for three weeks. Eleven defects were listed, three of them major.
Dismantling and Engineering (Midlands) Ltd., Blackheath : One vehicle suspended for one month, In this case two vehicles were prohibited in one day. Both had 10 defects, seven of them major.
Colroy Transport Ltd., Willenhall, were reprimanded. There were 11 defects, three of them major.
W. R. Barks, Stoke-upon-Trent : One vehicle was removed from a four-vehicle contract licence. Eleven defects were listed, six of them major.
George Matthews (1924) Ltd., Wolverhampton: One vehicle suspended for three weeks. Thirteen defects were listed, six of them major.
Also reprimanded were D. Horton (Walsall) Ltd., V. Silvester and Son Ltd., of Stafford, and J. W. Turbutt of Tipton.
Several operators said in evidence that since being pulled up they had adopted a maintenance form produced by the West Midland area which had proved beneficial in helping mechanics to know what to look for when checking vehicles.