AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Shropshire 'shame'

22nd May 1982, Page 8
22nd May 1982
Page 8
Page 8, 22nd May 1982 — Shropshire 'shame'
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?

EVERY VEHICLE belonging to Sheila Holding, trading as S. Holding and Sons, of Telford, Shropshire, that was inspected by a vehicle examiner was given an immediate prohibition, West Midlands Licensing Authority Arthur Crabtree was told at a Birmingham public inquiry.

The LA was considering taking disciplinary action against Mrs Holding's licence, which authorises five vehicles and seven trailers, together with an application for two additional vehicles.

Vehicle examiner Clive Pitts said he made an appointment to inspect the vehicles in February, but none were available. He examined the inspection records and found they were not in any sort of order. They were not signed or dated, and several had no vehicle registration numbers entered.

He saw four vehicles and three trailers at a later date. All the vehicles were given immediate prohibitions. Many of the defects were obvious and of long standing.

Leslie Holding, who manages the business on behalf of his wife, said he suffered a heart attack in November last year. He had relied upon his father-in-law and his 16-year-old son to make sure that the vehicles were up to standard. It was only since February that he had been able to do anything at all in the business.

The additional vehicles were required for work on the new motorway at Telford.

After Mr Holding had said that he had been in haulage for 28 years, Mr Crabtree commented that he should be ashamed of the condition of the vehicles. Mr Holding had previously been warned about maintenance at a public inquiry in 1978, and there had also been Written warnings about the records.

Mr Holding said he did not feel that the defects were too bad, considering the vehicles had been looked after by a 16-yearold boy. Four people were now employed to work on the vehicles, and as he was no longer on the road himself he had more time to attend to things like records.

Issuing a warning and refusing the variation application, Mr Crabtree said he was prepared to give Mr Holding one more chance in view of the fact that the licence expired at the end of August. Mr Holding had been in the business long enough to know better. There would be a further inspection before renewal and Mr Holding had to do a lot better than this.