AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Serious warning for obstruction

27th May 1993, Page 14
27th May 1993
Page 14
Page 14, 27th May 1993 — Serious warning for obstruction
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?

• A director of 13arrow in Furnessbased CAW, who obstructed a vehicle examiner attempting to inspect the company's vehicles, received a serious warning from North Western Traffic Commissioner that further obstruction could call the company's repute into question.

The company, which holds a licence for 15 vehicles and 10 trailers, appeared at a Kendal disciplinary inquiry before Martin Albu.

Vehicle examiner Mark Ward said last September a vehicle and trailer owned by the company were inspected and issued with immediate prohibitions endorsed "neglect" for brake, tyre and lighting defects.

During an unannounced fleet check in October director Peter Earley prevented him from carrying out his job. When he arrived at the premises he saw a rigid vehicle being driven by Mark Earley. He told him he wanted to take the vehicle to the HGV test station to be inspected_ Peter Earley then pushed him back and prevented him from handing over the necessary form. He instructed his son to drive the vehicle away and was then abusive to Ward.

With police assistance Ward inspected eight vehicles and three trailers, issuing one imme diate and five delayed prohibitions. In seven months four immediate prohibitions, three of which were endorsed neglect, and six delayed prohibitions had been issued.

Peter Earley was subsequently convicted of two offences of obstruction.

Peter Earley said: "Mark Ward and I have had our moments, although I do appreciate he has a job to do. He is married to his job and loves it:' The biggest problem with the vehicles was with the brakes, said Earley. The only rolling road in the area was operated by the DOT officials who were not always there. The vehicles were fitted with self adjusting brakes and such problems should never occur. The manufacturer was investigating.

Adjourning the proceedings, Albu said he would have been fully justified in deciding the company's maintenance facilities were inadequate. However, he would take no action if he saw contracts for independent safety inspections with six-weekly brake testing.