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
183
184
185
186
187
188 
No-show company fined £4,000
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A WIRRAL OPERATOR, which ignored a court summons, has been fined more than £4,000 in its absence for using a vehicle that did not have a test certificate and was subject to a prohibition notice.
Bromborough-based Stockwest failed to appear to answer the charges before the Liverpool Magistrates and when the case was proved it was fined £4,085 in fines and costs.
Traffic examiner Sarah Bell said last August, a 7.5tonne Iveco Cargo vehicle belonging to the company was stopped in a roadside check at Speke. On inspection an 0-licence identity disc in the name of Stockwest was found, but no vehicle excise licence. On a check of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency database it was found that the vehicle had last had an annual test on 29 October 2001 and that it was under prohibition for various defects found on 21
May 2002. When a director of the company, Stephen Bird, was interviewed,he had confirniedthat the company was using the Truck had 0-licence but no tax disc vehicle and was interviewed,he had confirniedthat the company was using the Truck had 0-licence but no tax disc vehicle and
employing the driver on the date of the check.
The magistrates fined the company £2,500 for using the vehicle while a mechanical prohibition was in force and £1,500 for using it with no test certificate in force. They also ordered the company to pay £85 prosecution costs. Summary NOT IMPRESSED
The magistrates took a dim view of the company's failure to appear to offer any explanation for using the vehicle in defiance of a prohibition notice, with all the resultant road safety implications.