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 
Sloppy repairs earn warning
Page 23
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A South Yorkshire operator who blamed his previous maintenance contractor for prohibition notices has escaped with a warning. Barnsley-based Derek Heeley, trading as Heeley Minimix, was called before North Eastern Deputy Traffic Commissioner Patrick Mulvenna; he holds a licence for three vehicles.
Vehicle examiner Keith Craven said that over the past five years five immediate and four delayed prohibitions had been issued to Heeley's vehicles and there had been four refusals to clear.
Craven had carried out a maintenance investigation in March following the issue of an immediate prohibition for a significant maintenance failure. One vehicle, which was under repair was Issued with a delayed prohibition for a diesel leak. There were no inspection records for two vehicles over a fourmonth period, though Craven was told they were off the road during this time.
Heeley said that he had changed his maintenance contractor on the advice of the vehicle examiner and felt he had got things right. "I'm a busy man and I paid people good money to maintain the vehicles—I thought they were professional people," he said.
Craven told the OTC that all the necessary systems were in place, and the problem had been the quality of the people carrying out the work. The S-marked prohibition had been due to bad workmanship.
But the DX commented that it was Heeley's responsibility as the licence holder. it was not just a question of changing contractors; he needed a change of attitude. The situation was compounded by the fact that Heeley was sent a warning letter last November.
However, Heeley said he had upgraded his vehicles and that he was now only running two.
The DTC said he had taken on board the action Heeley had taken to put matters right and noted that there had been no prohibitions since the new contractor had been in place, He directed that a further maintenance Investigation be carried out without warning dwing the next 12 months. Mulvenna: Issued a warning. •