AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Defects cost firm its licence

3rd September 1998
Page 20
Page 20, 3rd September 1998 — Defects cost firm its licence
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 company from east London has had its licence revoked after it was accused of lacking the will or ability to maintain its vehicles.

South Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner Michael Turner disqualified Freecomp, of Walthamstovv, indefinitely, and one of its directors, Mrs K Juniper.

Vehicle examiner Christopher Ballantyne said that, since the licence was granted in 1995, the company's vehicles had attracted a number of prohibition notices and the annual test pass rate was poor.

The prohibitions listed defects that should have been found if an adequate inspection had been carried out before the vehicles were examined. Furthermore, no inspection records were available, there was no forward planning system for inspections and there was no proper driver defect reporting system in place.

Ballantyne concluded that the company lacked the will or the ability to maintain its vehicles to the minimum standard.

For Freecomp, Brian Newell said that it was accepted that the company had let itself down. The maintenance side of the operation had been controlled by Mr W Edwards, who had since resigned as a director. Mr D Juniper had now returned to the company „ to oversee the maintenance and improvements on this had been made since his return.

Turner said that the licence had been granted after a previous one held by Edwards and a Mr E Juniper had been revoked in 1992 because of a poor maintenance record. Edwards and Juniper had been disqualified from holding a licence for two years. It appeared that no lessons had been learned in the intervening period, and that the company had attempted to improve the situation only after the vehicle examiner's visit.

The company had been given a clear warning in 1995 and Turner concluded that its disregard for the importance of maintenance warranted a severe punishment.


comments powered by Disqus