Prohibition appeals T feel I must write in 'response to
Page 28
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
your news story on appeals procedures for prohibitions (CM 12-18 Feb). Having been stopped last week for a routine weight check on the A2 outside Dover, the Vehicle Inspectorate, I feel, gave me an unjustified prohibition, not allowing me to continue with my journey. The reason was that my tractor unit is fitted with topless mudguards so they clear under the neck of trailers when I turn; if they are complete they are just ripped off.
At my annual test in mid1996, the vehicle examiner failed my HGV for not having covers on my mudguards while not having a trailer attached to the vehicle, but he said there is no problem when a trailer is attached because the wheels are covered by the floor of the trailer. I had covers made for the mudguards which gave me a pass on my MoT and still continue to fit them on the odd occasion I don't have a trailer attached to my vehicle, but even then, being without wouldn't cause a problem because the axle is lifted off the ground when I do drive the vehicle solo.
The vehicle examiner would not listen to any explanation, and even more annoying, many more HG-Vs pulled in for this routine weight check while I was there also had topless mudflaps under their trailers and they were let through without the blink of an eye.
The second point considered to be a vehicle defect warranting a prohibition by the vehicle examiner is that I fitted a tap on the red airline supply. I do traction work using many different trailers, and some old trailers do not have the plungers fitted for modern automatic valves.
This is extremely dangerous because trailers that have been stood for a while lose air; then you have no brakes at all. At least with this tap fitted I have a visual safety precaution.
The vehicle examiner would not agree that this tap I had fitted was a safety precaution—he just said it was illegal because my vehicle was a G-reg and not an Ereg, and he continued to write out my PG9 to take my vehicle for a full MOT within seven days. He could find no other faults with my vehicle, so I cannot understand why the full MoT is required.
If my vehicle was badly maintained and neglected and major defects were found by this examiner I could have accepted this prohibition, but when other vehicles were being let through by him having no mudguard covers and towing a trailer like mine I think I have been victimised and I believe I was not breaking the law at all.
Because of this prohibition, my 0-licence records will show bad maintenance on my vehicle, which is simply not true.
I have been an ownerdriver for nearly eight years, keeping my 0-licence clean. can't afford to jeopardise it, so I keep my HGV well maintained and legal, hence the fact the inspector found no genuine defects.
An HGV goes through a rigorous examination during an annual test so this should be proof enough that the vehicle is sound and defectfree. I accept a fault can develop soon after an MoT and many owner-drivers, because of low haulage rates, cannot afford to rectify these faults, so why doesn't the VI issue an MoT every six months?
I would welcome any comments or advice.
Name and address supplied.
['I See Haulage Bulletin on page 24.