AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Lesson learnt after maintenance warning

26th February 2004
Page 30
Page 30, 26th February 2004 — Lesson learnt after maintenance warning
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 : Brakes, Railway Brake, Tire

AN OPERATOR HAS escaped with a warning over a prohibition notice and a variation notice issued since its licence was granted in September 2002.

Charles linsworth & Sons of St Helens appeared before North Western Traffic Commissioner Beverley Bell but no action was taken after she accepted that it had improved its maintenance systems.

Vehicle examiner Carl Hilton said the firm held a two-vehicle licence. An immediate prohibition showing a significant maintenance failure was issued to a tipper at a roadside check last June after brake defects were discovered. When the vehicle was produced for prohibition clearance a variation notice was issued for a tyre defects and brake imbalance. However, a vehicle examined during a maintenance investigation in October was satisfactory.

Appearing for the firm, Jonathan Backhouse said the problems had occurred when maintenance was contracted outthe firm was now undertaking its own maintenance. Inspection intervals had been reduced from six to four weeks and the vehicles would be roller-brake tested four times a year. Two newer vehicles had been acquired that were more suited to the site work being undertaken.

Bell remarked that this was clearly a new operator that had received a shock and had addressed its problems in a mature and responsible manner. Issuing a warning, the TC said it had seemed to have put matters right.