No action against Tarmac despite 119 prohibitions
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DESPITE the fact that 119 vehicle prohibitions had been placed upon the East Midlands fleet of Tarmac Roadstone Holdings Ltd, the East Midland Licensing Authority, Mr C. M. Sheridan, last week decided not to take disciplinary action against the company. Mr Sheridan said he was satisfied that Tarmac was aware of its responsibility under the Road Traffic Act.
Operating from seven depots in the area, the company held a licence specifying 222 vehicles, with 97 vehicles and 30 trailers to be acquired. Since 1971, the fleet had attracted 119 prohibitions, and warning letters had been sent to Tarmac by the area mechanical engineei in 1971, 1973 and 1974. Fleet inspections had been ordered in 1972 and July, 1974.
Mr Sheridan said it was the overall maintenance picture, rather than anything in particular, which had given him cause for anxiety and had led to his decision to call the company to public inquiry.
Mr Ronald Gladwin, Tarmac's area transport manager, said preventive maintenance was based on a system of regular fortnightly inspections. In addition, the vehicles were examined every 12,000 miles or three months, by one of the company's fleet engineers.
Constant supervision was maintained over the standard of the inspections and repair work by the area fleet engineer. In reply to Mr Sheridan, Mr Gladwin said that since the last fleet inspection additional staff had been taken on, the management team had been strengthened, and extensions had been carried out at two depots which had previously been rather cramped. If anything, the company was now over-manned in regard to maintenance staff.
For the company, Mr A. J. C. Rothera said on average there had been one prohibition every 430,000 miles, or one per vehicle every 10 years. Over 40 per cent of the prohibitions had been in respect of black smoke, and Tarmac thought it had now overcome this problem by the use of smoke meters.
An indication of the serious view the company took of these proceedings was that it had arranged for senior management, plus the depot managers and engineers of the seven depots concerned, to be present in court.
Announcing his decision, Mr Sheridan said LAs were always afraid that large companies would leave the transport side of their business "out on a limb." The presence of senior officials from Tarmac at these proceedings showed that this was not so in this case. He did not feel that he even needed to submit the company to the minor indignity of issuing a warning.