RoadTransport.com logo
You are in:  News>Legal News

Extra vehicle allowed after operator heeds advice

Thursday 27 September 2007 12:00

Despite a series of maintenance shortcomings, including operating without a valid test certificate, a Lancashire soft drinks distributor was granted an additional vehicle. Blackburn-based Phoenix Distributors (UK) escaped action against its licence after North Western Deputy Traffic Commissioner Patrick Mulvenna was told the company had acted on advice from a vehicle examiner. In addition to considering action against the firm's one-vehicle restricted licence, the DTC was also considering an application to increase the licence authorisation to two vehicles.

Vehicle examiner Neil Mitchell said he had carried out a new operator maintenance investigation. He had examined the vehicle and issued it with an immediate prohibition. There was no evidence of any forward planning, while some inspection records were incorrectly completed and indicated that the six-weekly inspection period was not being adhered to, with a period of 16 weeks between inspections on one occasion. There was no evidence of a driver defect reporting system and the vehicle had been operated from 1 November 2006 and 15 January 2007 without a valid test certificate. No tachograph records were available.

He agreed the company had been very receptive to the advice he had given, and understood that the maintenance regime had entirely changed, maintenance having been contracted out to a main ERF/MAN agent at Clitheroe.

For the company, Jonathan Backhouse said the firm had employed the services of a transport consultant. It desperately needed the extra vehicle. Director Imran Khan said that, prior to the vehicle examiner's visit, they had not known what was required. The use of the vehicle without a test certificate had resulted from a lack of organisation. He undertook to employ the transport consultant to carry out six monthly audits of the company's systems. The DTC accepted that the shortcomings had not been a deliberate attempt to avoid the O-licensing, system but were due to a lack of knowledge.

A typical case of a restricted O-licence holder who had no experience of transport before being granted a licence.

Email a friend

Related Articles

Our Publications

Subscribe to CMSubscribe to MT