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
167
168 
P CASE P.'
Page 23
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Transport Tribunal upholds IC's decision
DESPITE PERMITTING an appeal by Eastbourne-based All Pallets against the refusal of the South Eastern & Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner, Philip Brown, to grant in full its bid to increase its licence authorisation, the Transport Tribunal have upheld the TC's decision to suspend the licence for five days.
The company had applied to increase its licence from three vehicles to five vehicles and three trailers to be based at Newhaven, but the TC was only prepared to add one trailer to the licence.
A traffic examiner reported that due to the number of pallets in the yard and the amount of vehicles parked in the immediate vicinity, the site did not lend itself to the requested additional vehicles.
A vehicle examiner reported that four prohibitions had been issued between June 2003 and July 2007. In October, he issued an immediate prohibition marked 'S' and a delayed prohibition. There were excessive periods of time between safety inspections and the maintenance records were unsatisfactory. However, records produced at the public inquiry were a lot better and the company seemed to have taken his advice.
Evidence was given the company had changed its maintenance contractor immediately after the vehicle examiner's visit.
Before the Tribunal, James Backhouse, speaking for the company, argued suspension of the licence was disproportionate because the maintenance problems had been solved.
The traffic examiner, who had visited the site, had not disputed conditions in the evening were likely to be different.
The Tribunal did acknowledge that it wasn't the worst vehicle maintenance case they had seen, but the firm had failed to keep an eye on its maintenance contractor and its keeping of records.