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 
Tribunal remits case to North Western LA
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Refused a variation of his threevehicle licence by the North Western LA in January, John O'Hare, a Blackburn haulier, had the case remitted to the LA by the Transport Tribunal on Tuesday this week.
In sending the case for reconsideration, Mr G. D. Squibb, QC, the president of the Tribunal said that the LA had not appeared to take into account the arrangements which the appellant had made for the future maintenance and inspection of his vehicles in accordance with Section 64 (2) (d) of the Transport Act 1968.
For the appellant, Miss Charlotte Chrichton told the Tribunal that Mr O'Hare was engaged in the carriage of scrap metal and the disposal of industrial waste. In October last year an application was made to add a further vehicle to the existing licence and as a result, the LA had asked for a fleet inspection. During the inspection, the vehicle examiner had imposed one immediate GV9 involving 15 defects and delayed GV9s on the other two vehicles.
The haulier was called to a public inquiry on January 8 this year when, as a result of the condition of the vehicles, one vehicle was deleted from the licence for one month and the variation of the licence refused.
Miss Chrichton said that her client had no complaint about the suspension of the vehicle but it was contended that the arrangements which had been made for regular inspection and maintenance should have been examined at the public inquiry. Mr O'Hare was not represented there and had not brought up the matter and the LA had not questioned him on that subject.
The arrangements now made had been entered into after the fleet inspection but before receipt of the letter from the LA calling the haulier to public inquiry. They were relevant to the application for variation and should have been taken into account. They were not, however, and the refusal to vary the licence had been made apparently on the evidence given about the condition of the vehicles before the public inquiry. No attention had been paid to their condition at the time of the inquiry or to their future probable condition.
Garage records of inspection and servicing since the fleet inspection were produced to support the haulier's claim to regular inspection and records since last November.
The LA's decision, it was said, had cost Mr O'Hare £100 a week in hiring charges and it was submitted that the decision, as far as the variation was concerned, was wrong on the evidence, wrong in principle and unduly harsh.