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 
Firm must wait to see if bad language fouls it up
Page 23
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Manchester company wit have
iii to wait for a
J month to discover if action wit be taken against it following an incident where a vehicle examiner was subjected to a barrage of abuse.
Disciplinary proceedngs against EDT Transport were adjourned by the North Western Traffic Commissioner Beverley Bet to allow the Vehicle Inspectorate to check that its maintenance records are genuine. The Ardwick-based firm holds a licence for eight vehicles and eight trailers.
Vehicle examiner Karl Finnerty said that he was instructed to carry out the investigation following serious defects that had been listed on a prohibition notice and a variation issued at annual test.
However he told the inquiry that he was unable to inspect any vehicles because of the abusive attitude of director and transport manager Robert Thomas, which forced him to leave the premises without completing the inspection.
For the company Charles Stansfield said that Thomas accepted fully that his behaviour and attitude towards the vehicle examiner on the day in question left a lot to be desired, but said there was no physical violence threatened or any physical confrontation. He added that shortly before the visit, Thomas had been involved in a horrific accident whilst driving one of the company's vehicles and had later been charged with careless driving. Part of his reaction to the vehicle examiner's visit was probably caused by that thought at the back of his mind, he said.
In reply to Stansfield, Finnerty agreed that the worst language had been directed at the person who had imposed the prohibition. He also agreed that Thomas had not refused to allow him to inspect the vehicles.
Questioned by Bet, Finnerty said he felt the best thing to do was to leave in case it turned to violence.
Asked whether he had gone over the top in what he had said, Thomas replied: With respect, everyone in the transport industry swears."
Apologising to the vehicle examiner, Thomas said that the lesson he had learned was to curtail his language when people visited, but disagreed with the TC that it had been "a barrage of abuse".
Stansfield said that apart from the regrettable incident with the vehicle examiner, the company's record was not one that would give cause for alarm.
After examining the company's maintenance records, the TO said that she was concerned about their authenticity. In her experience, she had never seen vehicles inspected every six weeks on the dot.
Bet said she would be ask VOSA to investigate the matter with the company's maintenance contractor.