Spei I wins a re ute reprieve
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Gary Speight, director and transport manager of Speight Skip Hire, has not lost his repute, despite a conviction for handling stolen vehicle parts.
The company, based in Denholme, near Bradford, had been called before North Eastern Deputy Traffic Commissioner Patrick Mulvenna because of concern about its maintenance record and Speight's con viction at Bradford
.,. Crown Court in
June 1997, when he was fined £6,000 with £1,400 costs. The company held a licence for two vehicles in possession with one to be acquired.
Vehicle examiner David Howram said that following the issue of two prohibition notices Speight had appeared at a previous public inquiry in August 1997, when one vehicle was suspended for a fortnight.
In January he inspected two vehicles, issuing a delayed prohibition for three suspension defects. Speight's maintenance contractor had inspected the vehicle five days previously without noting them. Inspection intervals varied between 39 and 98 days. The ingredients were in place for an adequate system, but he felt that Speight had become complacent.
Howram agreed that the maintenance situation had improved greatly since the previous public inquiry.
Andrew Woolfall, for the company, said the Freight Transport Association saw the prohibited vehicle immediately afterwards, and could find nothing wrong with the suspension. The maintenance contractors also found little wrong, but the
parts concerned were changed as a
matter of course. One of the vehicles had since been replaced by a brand new vehicle.
Asked about the conviction, Speight said an employee had borrowed the company's pickup truck and smashed it in an accident. As it was only insured for third party, fire and theft, the employee offered to have it repaired. When the pickup was returned three months later it was a different colour. Speight did not think anything was wrong as it had had to be resprayed, but it turned out that it had been rebuilt by cannibalising a stolen vehicle.
Speight said he had had no knowledge of the fact at the time, but conceded that he had to accept the fact of the conviction.
Suspending one vehicle for three weeks and directing that there should be a further maintenance investigation in six months' time, the Deputy TC said this would focus Speight's mind on maintenance, as if either of the vehicles were not maintained properly he would not be able to use them, which would hit his pocket The conviction was not sufficient for Speight to lose his repute, as it was an isolated incident and there were no other convictions against either Speight or the company. But he warned that any further convictions would result in a loss of repute.