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
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182 
Break a promise, lose a licence
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A FIRM WITH a one-vehicle restricted licence has been warned that undertakings about its maintenance arrangements amounted to a personal promise to a Traffic Commissioner — and if that promise were broken, the licence would be forfeit.
North-Eastern Traffic Commissioner Tom Macartney issued his warning to Harrogate. North Yorks-based Mulbrand at a Leeds disciplinary inquiry.
Vehicle examiner Simon Smith said that one delayed and three immediate prohibitions had been issued to the company's vehicle since May 2004, together with a refusal and variation notice when it had been produced for prohibition clearance.
Only two inspection records were available; director Mark Robinson had said the others were with the maintenance contractor. The company had been sent warning letters in 2004 and 2006.
Robinson said the company was engaged in civil engineering and groundworks, and did not employ anyone with a CPC. He added that the maintenance contractor had been changed — the work was now handled by a mobile fitter. The company's driver had been trained by an engineering consultant who was also going to inspect the vehicle and carry out a systems audit every six months. The consultant had attended an 0-licensing seminar.