1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186 
Extra vehicle allowed after operator heeds vehicle examiner's advice
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DESPITE A SERIES of maintenance shortcomings, including operating without a valid test certificate, a Lancashire soft drinks distributor has been granted an additional vehicle. Blackburn-based Phoenix Distributors (UK) escaped action against its licence after North Western DeputyTraffic Commissioner Patrick Mulvenna was told the company had acted on advice from a vehicle examiner.
In addition to considering action against the firm's one-vehicle restricted licence, the DTC was also considering an application to increase the licence authorisation to two vehicles.
Vehicle examiner Neil Mitchell said he had carried out a new operator maintenance investigation. He examined the vehicle and issued an immediate prohibition.There was no evidence of any forward planning, while some inspection records were incorrectly completed and indicated that the six-weekly inspection period was not being adhered to, with 16 weeks between inspections on one occasion. There was no evidence of a driver defect reporting system and the vehicle had been operated from 1 November 2006 and 15 January 2007 without a valid test certificate. No tachograph records were available.
He agreed the company had been very receptive to the advice he had given, and understood the maintenance regime had entirely changed, with maintenance contracted to a main ERF/MAN agent at Clitheroe.
For the company,Jonathan Backhouse said the firm had employed the services of a transport consultant. It desperately needed the extra vehicle. Director Imran Khan said that, prior to the vehicle examiner's visit, they had not known what was required.The use of the vehicle without a test certificate had resulted from a lack of organisation. He undertook to employ the transport consultant to carry out six-monthly audits of the company's systems.
The DTC accepted that the shortcomings had not been a deliberate attempt to avoid the 0-licensing, system but were due to a lack of knowledge.