Haulier's second go
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IF A haulier had been professionally represented at an inquiry of the North West deputy Licensing Authority last October, he may not have needed to appeal before the Transport Tribunal this week.
General haulier James Schofield of Parbold, near Wigan was appealing against the decision of the deputy LA to revoke his operator's licence and to refuse to renew it with an increased vehicle allocation.
As a result of the appeal, the case was referred to the deputy LA for reconsideration.
Mr Schofield's case went back to February 1978 when he was due to appear before the North West deputy LA. His fleet of three tractive units and three trailers had received several GV9s and the area vehicle examiner reported that the maintenance facilities — a part-time fitter working in an open-ended barn — were "basic" and apparently deteriorating.
Mr Schofield did not attend this original hearing because, he said, he had not received the letter informing him of it, and in his absence his 0 licence expiry date was brought forward from December 31 to June 30 1978.
At a second hearing in October, Mr Schofield applied for his licence to be renewed and for the vehicle allocation to be doubled. Evidence from the area's vehicle examiner showed that in the last six years Mr Schofield's operations had been the subject of ,seven maintenance investigations and his vehicles had received 16 GV 9s, both immediate and delayed.
The vehicle examiner also reported that maintenance facilities had not improved, finding the single pit "oil and water-logged". Mr Schofield had also failed to produce records of maintenance and had failed to keep appointments with the vehicle examiner.
At this second enquiry, Mr Schofield did not give satisfactory reasons for these events and in the light of this apparently "flimsy maintenance", and "evasive attitude" to record production and failure to keep appointments, the deputy LA refused to renew the licence and revoked the current, expired, one.
But for Mr Schofield, Mr Backhouse gave sound reasons for the missed appointments and pointed to Mr Schofield's efforts to improve maintenance facilities at his premises.
Mr Backhouse successfully argued that since the North West deputy LA had not heard this evidence, the tribunal should remit the case back to him.