AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

MR. ELSE GETS TOUGH ON MAINTENANCE

16th April 1965, Page 36
16th April 1965
Page 36
Page 36, 16th April 1965 — MR. ELSE GETS TOUGH ON MAINTENANCE
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 : Tata Ace, Suspension

T"West Midland Licensing Authority, Mr. J. Else, has announced a new "get tough" policy on owners of badly maintained goods vehicles. He has instructed his mechanical engineers and vehicle examiners that cases of obvious neglect must be brought before him for consideration of revocation or suspension of licences.

Mr. Else stated this when giving his decision at Birmingham on Monday in the case of Mr. H. P. Kitching, of Stratford upon Avon, brought under Section 178 of the Road Traffic Act, He said that Mr. N. Carless, appearing for Mr. K itching, had expeessed surprise that he (the LA) had thought it necessary to consider the revocation or suspension of his client's vehicles, having regard to his previous good record.

Mr. Else pointed out that the number of vehicle inspectors had been very restricted, and only in the past 12 months had there been any improvement.

Despite this the number and percentage of detected defective vehicles had been steadily growing in the traffic area, indicating that the position was not altogether healthy. Owners of vehicles found to be unroadworthy would be brought before him regardless of their previous record, he said.

In this case, Mr. Else went on, Mr. Kitching had a vehicle in a very dangerous condition which ended up in a ditch by M6 with one wheel detached. However, he had had considerable difficulties in trying to maintain his vehicles and now appeared to be taking action to improve the situation. The vehicle concerned was suspended for 14 days from next Monday.

Mr. Kitching said in evidence that his vehicles were checked every week-end for defects and that in the past year he had paid £2,700 to two firms to repair and maintain them. One big problem he faced was not having electricity or water laid on at his depot. He had been refused permission to have these services laid on, but had now obtained consent for this work to be done.