Licence suspended for three months
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Clarityrole Ltd (Nottingham Service Contractors)
• The Transport Tribunal has now issued its written judgment on its dismissal of a Nottingham operator's appeal against a threemonth licence suspension which began at midnight on March 22.
Clarityrole Ltd, trading as Nottingham Service Contractors, holding a restricted 0licence for four vehicles running from April 1981 to March 1986, applied in July 1983 to the Eastern LA for a variation adding one vehicle. Owing to difficulties in inspecting the appellant's vehicles there was a delay in decision.
The appellant was told that its application would be heard at a public inquiry in Nottingham on July 24 when the LA would also consider whether to exercise his powers under Section 69 of the Transport Act 1968 having regard to prohibition notices issued in respect of some of its vehicles and failure to carry out statements of maintenance intention.
An adjournment was granted because of prior holiday commitments" and a new date set for October 9, and on that day the LA's clerk reported that a phone call had informed him no representative could attend. Mr Gibson, the director, was informed that the Deputy LA night well wish to proceed with the matter. The Deputy LA decided to hear the evidence from the vehicle examiner.
The vehicle examiner gave evidence of prohibitions and inspections and additional evidence that on October 3, 1985, he had found that the appellant had moved its operating centre without informing the LA, He nevertheless inspected one vehicle and issued a defect note for seven items. Mr Gibson said the maintenance records and MoT certificates were still at the old operating centre and he would produce them at 4pm, but did not come back. Four days later, when the vehicle examiner phoned, he was told that Mr Gibson was away.
In the light of that evidence the Deputy LA suspended the licence for three months and announced that a public inquiry would be held at the end of that time. The appeal arose from that decision and the Deputy LA granted a stay of the suspension pending the outcome.
Gibson presented the appeal, the burden of it being that the public inquiry should not have been proceeded with as he had informed the clerk on that day that he had had an injury.
Gibson said be had sustained a laceration of the leg and had to go to hospital for treatment. By phone he had asked for the inquiry to be held later in the day if possible. His wound was treated more quickly than he had anticipated, he was ready to leave by 10am and phoned home to be told that a message had been received that the public inquiry would be held in his absence; he waited for transport to take him home.
"In our judgment Mr Gibson made no reasonable efforts at that time to reach the public inquiry and present any evidence or records he may have had," said the Tribunal.
It would only have taken him five or 10 minutes in a car to get from the hospital to the public inquiry and he should in our judgment have telephoned the offices of the Licensing Authority as soon as his treatment was complete and have said that he was going straight on to the inquiry as soon as he could get a taxi. Had he done this we are satisfied the Deputy Licensing Authority would have waited for his arrival, or would have adjourned the inquiry if it had already commenced."