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 
Farmers in trouble over records
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The need for all heavy goods vehicles operators—and not merely professional hauliers—to conform to the required DoE maintenance and recording standards was highlighted at a public inquiry in Birmingham recently when Mr John Else, the West Midland LA, called before him two Uttoxeter farmers under Section 69 of The Transport Act 1968.
After hearing evidence in which it was stated that one of the farmers, Mr J. W. Cotton, the holder of an 0 licence authorizing two vehicles, had made arrangements to have his vehicles especially inspected at six-weekly intervals and to keep RHA inspection records, Mr Else decided to take no action against the licence. The court had earlier heard that an inspection carried out by a DoE vehicle examiner late last year had resulted in one vehicle being issued with a delayed prohibition notice and had also brought to light the fact that maintenance records were not being kept.
Mrs J. E. Hull, of Stock Lane Farm, Uttoxeter, had her licence authorizing one vehicle suspended until the end of March by the LA. Mr Else had been told that on a similar inspection Mrs Hull had been unable to produce maintenance records and her vehicle issued with an immediate 0V9.
In defence of the licence Mrs Hull, who had earlier stated that she "put her animals before the vehicle," said that since the inspection, arrangements had been made to have the vehicle inspected every four weeks and to keep RHA-type records.