W. Midland LA settles 22 Section 69 cases in one day
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The first large scale public inquiry relating to offences under Section 69 of the 1968 Transport Act was held last week in Birmingham before Mr J. Else, the West Midland LA.
Twenty-two cases were heard: two operators appeared for failing to keep maintenance records, four for inadequate maintenance facilities and the remaining 16 cases concerned non-payment of licence fees.
The two operators called to appear for failing to keep maintenance records were Mr C. Walker, of Ammington, and Mr C. W. Morris, of Yardley, Birmingham. Both were represented by Mr D. E. Skelding. In both cases vehicle examiners said, in evidence, that no maintenance schedules had been kept although the vehicles concerned were in a good state of repair.
Mr. Walker, said Mr Skelding, had been in the haulage industry for 30 years and was finding it difficult to adjust, after so many years, to all the regulations concerned with the new licences. Mr Skelding assured the LA that, after advice from himself to Mr Walker, adequate records would be kept.
The LA said he would be as lenient as possible and imposed a suspension of the one vehicle in Mr Walker's possession for a period of one week in November.
The case of Mr Morris was, said Mr Skelding, very similar to that of Mr Walker. Mr Morris had been an operator for very many years and now had a contract licence for three vehicles for the purpose of carrying meat.
Mr Morris said that after the examiner's visit in August, maintenance was being carried out to an approved schedule at monthly intervals. The LA pointed out, however, that record sheets had been shown to a vehicle examiner in January but between then and the examiner's August visit the sheets had not been completed. The LA withdrew authority to acquire a further two vehicles, during the currency of the licence and suspended one vehicle for the month of November.
The next four cases were considered as one for the purpose of the inquiry and had resulted from a number of GV9s issued during a visit by a vehicle examiner to the common premises of four companies at Greet, Birmingham. The companies, Trows Transport Ltd, W. A. Tranter and Son Ltd, Shaldon Motors Ltd and Lanes Motor Deliveries Ltd had formed a consortium operating 27 vehicles and seven trailers.
The vehicle examiner, Mr F. H. Kendrick, said that on an inspection on July 30 seven delayed GV9s were issued out of a total of 15 vehicles examined.
Mr L. A. Trow, managing director of Trows Transport and a director of each of the other three companies, said that at the moment three men were employed as fitters. More staff were to be recruited and planning permission had been obtained to extend the existing premises. The LA said that at the time of ,the original application the work load of his examiners had meant that the maintenance facilities had not been inspected, and the subsequent visit had indicated that the facilities were not adequate for the vehicles in possession.
The licence, as originally granted, had allowed for a total of 39 vehicles and 13 trailers including future acquisitions. The LA reduced the previous margin to 29 vehicles and,nine trailers for the currency of the licence. This allowed the immediate addition of two articulated units recently purchased but not yet delivered.
The remaining cases dealt with non-payment of licence fees after applications had been granted. Only three of the 16 operators involved were present. The 13 who did not appear had all written to the LA to say that the licences were no longer required and formal revocation of these licences was made.
The 13 firms who had their licences revoked were: Excavations and Minerals (Midlands) Ltd, F. Wright, D. L. Price, H. E. Perry, M. H. and P. A. Eardley, G. G. Wright, E. P. Davies, C. W. Miles, D. W. Hughes, V. A. Seale, G. Barker, M and C Supplies Ltd, and J. McLoughlin.
The three firms who did appear gave assurances of immediate payment of the fees and no further action was, therefore, taken. The firms were: E. Newcombe Ltd, W. Harmer Ltd, and J. B. Thomas.