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 
Restricted grant after promises disregarded
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Not only should vehicle maintenance be seen to be done by a tick on a maintenance form, but it must also be shown to be done by proper and adequate job records.
This observation was made by the Western LA, Mr J. R. C. Samuel Gibbon in Plymouth on Monday when, after an application for an operator's licence made by Richard Cuming Plant Ltd of King sbridge for five vehicles and two loader trailers, he granted a licence for only two vehicles for a trial period of six months.
Mr Samuel-Gibbon said that promises made by Richard Cuming the managing director, when making an application for an operator's licence in his own name before the formation of the company, had been totally disregarded. The LA added that it was beyond his comprehension how applicants could fail to know the law and their responsibilities for proper vehicle maintenance.
Evidence was given by a DoE vehicle examiner of two immediate and two delayed prohibitions in September 1971, The LA remarked that although the present application was made in July 1971 the first maintenance record was shown to be January 20 1972. Only on the grounds that a Mr May, an employee of the company had been made transport manager with full responsibility for vehicle maintenance was the limited licence granted.