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
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166 
GV9s belonged to drivers, court told
Page 63
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A Lanarkshire firm had its licence reduced this week by the Scottish LA after evidence had been submitted that GV9s had been issued on vehicles that were in fact owned individually by drivers rather than the firm concerned.
The firm, D. and J. McKenzie and Co Ltd, of Kirkmuirhill, had been called to appear at Glasgow under Section 69 of the Transport Act after two immediate GV9s had been issued, in addition to two convictions last year.
Mr James Law, representing the firm, said that, after advice from examiners, records were now being kept correctly for the 28 vehicles and trailers authorized by the licence. Questioned by the LA, Mr D. McKenzie, the managing director, said a weighbridge was to be installed at the firm's new premises and this would help prevent overloading of vehicles. He also spoke of the difficulty of employing suitable drivers and was now operating fewer vehicles. A number of vehicles had also been sold and were now being operated by drivers acting under the firm's instructions.
Asked by Mr Law how it was that the vehicles had come to be issued with GV9s in view of the fact that they had weekly inspections, Mr T. Hamilton, transport manager, said that they were driven by drivers who were now the owners but the vehicles still carried the company's name. Eighteen vehicles and five trailers were now being used, including those being owned by drivers. The LA said he could not appreciate how the drivers came to be in this peculiar situation.
Summing up, Mr Law said that GV9s were being issued on vehicles driven by men who proposed to apply for licences themselves and, he maintained, the GV9s had been returned to D. and McKenzie when, in fact, they should have gone to the drivers concerned.
After a short adjournment the LA said that under the law he could not take into account the "peculiar thing about the drivers"; all he could take into account were the prohibitions and inspections. He therefore decided to reduce the firm's licence to 18 vehicles and five trailers which was the number now being operated, and also to curtail the licence on one vehicle.