AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

FRIGHT FOR FIRM

11th August 1967, Page 25
11th August 1967
Page 25
Page 25, 11th August 1967 — FRIGHT FOR FIRM
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords :

THE 65-vehicle C-licence firm, Collars Ltd., of London had four of its vehicles suspended for two months from September 1 at a Sec tion 178 hearing before Metropolitan LA Mr. D. I. R. Muir on Tuesday. The firm's vehicles had received five immediate and eight

delayed prohibitions.

Collars Ltd. secretary and director, Mr. John Pickles, said that the firm had accepted that there had been a serious lack of maintenance. It intended to sell all vehicles over four years old—more than half the fleet—and would instead hire vehicles from Charles Rickard. It also contracted to use the TRTA maintenance scheme.

He told Mr. Muir that general managers at the laundry and dry-cleaning firm's depots would in future be held directly responsible for maintenance and a maintenance card system instituted.

Said Mr. Muir: "I believe that this company has had a severe fright—and quite rightly so. The steps taken ought to prevent a recurrence. But a penalty must be imposed."

In another 178 case, Mr. Frank H. Mycroft, managing director of Essex Soft Drinks Ltd. (seven C-licence vehicles) and Biddle and Gingell Ltd. (four), of Markfield Road, N15, said of the imposition of immediate and delayed prohibitions: "I am a chartered accountant, and the father of four children and am as aware of road safety as any other man."

He said he was discontinuing both his businesses at the end of August but had not let maintenance slide because of this.

After hearing his explanation of various defects, Mr. Muir commented: "You seem to make a great many excuses for yourself. In fact there has been a good deal of slack