Poor start for Grandfield
Page 17
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A Pontefract scaffolding firm, said by North Eastern Traffic Commissioner Keith Waterworth to have had a rocky relationship with the licensing system, had one vehicle suspended from its two vehicle licence for one month.
Christopher Grandfield and Michael Sharp, trading as S&G Scaffolding, appeared before the Commissioner because of concern over its maintenance standards, a number of convictions and the unauthorised use of a vehicle.
After Grandfield had said a limited company had been formed and Sharp had left the business, Waterworth commented that licences were not transferable and it would be necessary to apply for a fresh licence in the name of the limited company. Vehicle examiner Michael Welford said the firm had operated vehicles without a licence before being granted a licence in April 1997 during which time an immediate prohibition was issued, endorsed as showing a significant maintenance failure.
The Firm was subsequently convicted of using a vehicle with defective brakes. He examined two vehicles in October, issuing a delayed prohibition and two defect notices. There were no maintenance records, no planning system or a driver defect reporting system. Grandfield was clearly unaware of the firm's responsibilities under the licensing system. There had been too much work and he had let things slip, said Grandfield. The maintenance was now being contracted out to a commercial garage and the dates inspections were due were noted in a diary. They had introduced a driver defect reporting system as recommended by the vehicle examiner. The fines for convictions for defective brakes and unauthorised use in September 1996 had been paid in Full. Asked why the convictions had not been declared in the licence application form, Grandfield said it had been filled in by his wife, Three prohibitions in the space of a year were a bit worrying, said Waterworth, However, Grandfield seemed to have listened to the advice given and had taken action. He was imposing a nominal penalty because of the prohibitions and the very poor effort mark in maintaining the vehicles in the first few months the firm had held a licence. Proper maintenance systems were now in place.