AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Company fined for one-off licence incident

3rd June 1999, Page 21
3rd June 1999
Page 21
Page 21, 3rd June 1999 — Company fined for one-off licence incident
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?

tracts was fined 1100, with £75 costs, after Milton Keynes magistrates accepted that the unauthorised use of a vehicle had been an isolated incident.

The company had admitted using the vehicle without the authority of an 0-licence.

Prosecuting for the Vehicle Inspectorate, David Endersby said that last August the vehicle concerned had been stopped in a check and was found not to be displaying an 0-licence disc. First Line Con• company's possession for Subsequent enquires established that the vehicle had been in the company's possession since 15 May without being specified on its 0-licence.

Defending, Chris Butterfield said that the vehicle had not been used continuously since 15 May, but it was conceded that when stopped it had been in the longer than a month.

This was not a case of the company not holding a licence, in fact it held a licence authorising 60 vehicles with only 18 in possession," he said. The paperwork issued by the company the vehicle was hired from had been inaccurate. It showed another vehicle's registration number and that was why the excess period had not been picked up in the company's traffic office.

This was not a cow boy operator flouting the law by running a vehicle without a licence, Butterfield stressed.

New systems were now in place to ensure that the traffic manager made daily checks on how long a hired vehicle had been in the fleet, and those arrangements had recently been approved by the VI.

Fining the company, the chairman of the magistrates said they accepted that this was a one-off offence by a responsible operator, and the bench was confident that there would be no repetition.


comments powered by Disqus