AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Warning after maintenance undertakings

13th December 2007
Page 34
Page 34, 13th December 2007 — Warning after maintenance undertakings
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?

FOUR UNDERTAKINGS on vehicle maintenance have enabled an own-account operator to escape with a warning at a Leeds disciplinary inquiry.

Bradford, West Yorkshire-based Whitehall Stone Sales, which holds a two-vehicle restricted licence, had been called before North-Eastern Traffic Commissioner Tom Macartney.

Vehicle examiner Lindsay Snowdon said she carried out a maintenance investigation in June following the issue of an S-marked prohibition, indicating a serious lapse in maintenance,for a brake defect discovered at annual test.The stated inspection period was six weeks but there were gaps in the maintenance records of up to 17 weeks. The records were a mess. Maintenance was contracted out; there had been six prohibitions and three variation notices in the past five years.

Director Keith Dibb said the prohibition at annual test was due to the failure of a component that had not been fitted correctly. The company had grown rapidly and he had been doing too much himself. He had now brought in a consultant to manage the transport operation.

Colin Smith, from transport management specialist Mocol, said he had carried out an audit and held a meeting with the drivers, and was now introducing new systems.

The company undertook that inspections would be planned and would be no more than eight weeks apart with roller brake tests every three months. The FTA would make pre-annual test audit inspections, and the company would establish a daily nil-defect reporting system.


comments powered by Disqus