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 
More concern for vehicles
Page 64
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Although Mr H. G. Williams of Salford, Lancashire, maintained and repaired other operators' vehicles he paid very little attention, if any, to the condition of his own two tippers.
This was said at a public inquiry in Manchester last week by Mr Roy Barnes, vehicle examiner, when he gave evidence to the North Western LA, Mr C. R. Hodgson, under Section 69. The court heard that on two previous occasions Mr Williams had failed to attend similar hearings and had shown very little consideration of maintenance regulations.
Although he had a fully equipped workshop capable of housing six vehicles, when the examiner inspected one of the two tippers in question it was found to haVe serious defects and an immediate 0V9 was given.
However, at a later visit, said Mr Barnes, the condition of both vehicles had improved and it was his opinion that the operator had made a genuine effort to maintain his vehicles to DoE standards.
After hearing this evidence the LA said he would take no action against the licence held by Mr Williams.