Olympic has 0-licence appeal turned down Operator: Olympic Scaffolding Matter: Operator appeal Hearing: London Upper tribunal judge: Jacqueline Beech
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
UPPER tribunal judge Jacqueline Beech has dismissed an 0-licence appeal from Olympic Scaffolding, saying the firm was involved in a "very bad case of repeated non-compliance". Following an appeal hearing in July, the judge upheld the March decision of Nick Denton, South East traffic commissioner (TC), when he revoked the firm's restricted licence for four vehicles. In August 2012 one of the company's vehicles was issued with an S-marked prohibition for brake defects, which included a pipe from the compressor to the tank being inadequately repaired by tape. The subsequent investigation in November 2012 discovered that: • the same vehicle had been operated for six weeks without an MoT certificate; — the driver of that vehicle had been issued with a fixed penalty for a failure to produce tachograph records; • he had also been given a fixed penalty for driving on a section of the M4 viaduct despite a 7.5-tonne weight restriction being in force at the time; • two delayed prohibitions had been issued during the maintenance investigation; • the driver defect reporting system was not being fully used; • the forward planner did not project six months ahead; • no preventive maintenance inspection records were available;
• no maintenance contract was available for inspection. In his written decision, the TC concluded that Olympic had "failed completely" to improve compliance throughout the life of
the licence despite warnings and two previous public inquiries.
On appeal, the firm said that while there had been repeated regulatory failings, there were still a range of regulatory sanctions available to the TC falling short of revocation, such as suspension and curtailment.
However, Judge Beech said: "We are satisfied that the TC considered the correct tests in this case and arrived at the obvious only appropriate and reasonable conclusion. This was a very bad case of repeated non-compliance despite warnings and two previous public inquiries." Summing up
The judge said she did not feel compelled "whether by logic or law" to come to a different conclusion to that of the TC.