L A 'appalled' by bad record
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HICLES of Leggetts Transport Ltd, Woolpit, Bury St Edmunds, had received something like 40 thibitions and defect notices since 1974, but steps taken to put matters right rendered any ection under section 69 of the Transport Act unnecessary. This was said by the Eastern Deputy ensing Authority, Gerald Kidner, at the close of the continued disciplinary hearing (CM, Oct at Cambridge.
le said he had been in mind curtail the fleet by a subntial number of vehicles as vas "a pretty appalling re -le understood the family :kground of difficulty, but erators' responsibilities der the law were paraiunt.
;ince the end of the ritation on running the siness last year, the record prohibitions had worsened, d even a written warning m the LA had not improved itters.
['here would be a full inaction of vehicles and rerds in nine months and, less there was a good report, licence would be at risk. Earlier it had been said the are structure of the cornny had led to problems in its vancement, preventing the king on of new staff, reicement of vehicles, or imovement of the operating ntre.
Arthur Leggett, managing -ector, said that since the t hearing a new pit had been installed and additional fitting staff taken on.
B. Hyward, transport manager, said he joined the company in January, but had found difficulty in a family-run business in implementing changes immediately.
It was submitted that the company accepted there had been too many prohibitions, but it had been hindered by old-fashioned ideas, staff limits and financial restrictions. Mr Leggett personally had been forced to try to do too much by himself. These constraints were no longer effective and efforts were now taking place, in many ways, to make improvements.