AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Too much paperwork for newly formed company

31st March 1972, Page 23
31st March 1972
Page 23
Page 23, 31st March 1972 — Too much paperwork for newly formed company
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?

• A newly formed company, Macclesfield Removers Ltd, 9 Rutland Close, Rood Hill, Congleton, had run into difficulties with its paper work, Sandbach, Cheshire, magistrates were told last week when it and one of its drivers faced 16 summonses concerning drivers' records offences.

The hearing had been adjourned from ' March 1, for the company to be legally represented but when the case opened a plea of guilty was entered.

Mr A. Roden, prosecuting for the North Western LA, said the offences came to light as the result of a road check on one of the company's vehicles, a Morris van, carried out by a West Midland traffic examiner on M6 at Hilton Park service area, Cannock, Staffs. The record sheet carried by Mr Anthony Wittig, of the same address, the driver and also a director of the company, was not properly filled in.

An inspection of the drivers' records followed and revealed discrepancies which included failure to show total duty times and the time finishing work. No carbon copies were kept and the records were not signed.

Mr H. Dean, for the defendant, said in mitigation that the company had been in business only a few months and Mr T. Condy, the managing director, had been trying to cope with the office work at his home in Congleton and the question of inspection of records had been overlooked. Premises had now been acquired in Macclesfield and a proper system for inspections and signing of records and keeping a register put into force.

On eight charges against the company for failing to cause to be kept current records, and eight charges against Mr Wittig for failing to complete current records, the magistrates imposed fines of €.3 for each offence, a total of £48 plus £7 advocate's fee.


comments powered by Disqus