19-vehicle margin removed after 13 GV9s
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The operator's licence of Meacher's Transport Ltd, the Southampton haulier, was curtailed by 19 vehicles by the South Eastern LA at Southampton last week. The 19 vehicles curtailed represent a margin between the number authorised on the licence and the number at present operated.
Announcing his decision the LA, Maj-Gen A. F. J. Elmslie, said that no application for further vehicles would be considered before July 1, and such application would attract a fleet inspection.
Mr John Saunders, a vehicle examiner, referred to a fleet inspection carried out in 1971 when the company made application to add 22 vehicles to its licence, making the total authorised 64. On that occasion 15 vehicles were inspected, and of these two received delayed prohibition notices.
Another inspection was arranged in October 1972, when eight vehicles were inspected. He issued two delayed prohibition notices and two defect notices. The other vehicles' last reported inspection was ten weeks previously; the mileage covered by one of the vehicles was in excess of 9,000 since the previous inspection, and this he considered to be excessive.
Maj-Gen Elmslie said that after the 1971 fleet inspection it was not thought necessary to call the operator to a public inquiry, it being considered that the inspection and the prohibitions would be sufficient warning. But last October a further fleet inspection resulted in two delayed prohibitions. Whatever the tester's manual might say, the examiner had no difficulty in finding these defects. Meacher's inspection system should be so improved that they could find out such defects before the examiners did. The company's system appeared to allow more emphasis on operations than on preventive maintenance.
In his view the inspection arrangements were at fault, and this had led Meacher's to the position where they had had 13 delayed prohibition notices since their application for an operator's licence. In these circumstances a penalty was merited.
Mr A. L. Lowth, for the company, said that an appeal against the decision would be considered and asked that the penalty would not take effect provided a notice of appeal was served.