Lack of supervision brings haulier to 178 inquiry
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A haulier who had been called to a Section 178 inquiry in September 1965 and again last October when he was warned he would lose some of his vehicles permanently if he appeared again, had six vehicles deleted for periods varying from six to nine months at a hearing in Birmingham on Monday.
The West Midland LA, Mr. J. Else, said the case of Joseph Kimberley and Sons Ltd. of Stoke-on-Trent was a sad one. The company had good premises, equipment and staff but tacked a preventive maintenance system and effective supervision. It had 24 vehicles and between December 1 1967 and July 31 1968, 23 prohibitions had been imposed.
Mr. L. Holt, MoT vehicle examiner, said he had issued 13 prohibitions on 17 vehicles during July. He had called twice since but maintenance records still had not been introduced.
J. Ashman and Son Ltd., Warley, also received a penalty for bad maintenance. Mr. Else suspended four vehicles for one month.
Mr. A. Morris, a vehicle examiner, said he had stopped an Ashman vehicle on the road on July 23 and had issued an immediate prohibition. In his opinion if the vehicle had had to make an emergency stop, the pedal would have become dis connected completely. Another examiner, Mr. K. W. Girling, had carried out a fleet inspection in August on 31 vehicles and issued nine immediate and 10 delayed GV9s. The equipment was adequate but the five fitters were only semi-skilled and the premises were very dirty, he said.
The transport manager, Mr. B. C. Ash man, said a qualified foreman had now been engaged after a two-year search. In order to train present mechanics, day-release courses had been arranged. The foreman, Mr. R. H. March, said since joining Ashman he had cleaned up one bay where three vehicles a night were greased and checked, and overhauls would be carried out every six weeks.
John Hill and Sons (Walsall) Ltd. of Wolverhampton had received an immediate prohibition in January 1968 and had received a £23 fine on April 29 for inefficient brakes. During a recent fleet check on eight of his 14 vehicles, five delayed GV9s had been imposed.
Mr. L. E. Hill protested that the handbrake of the vehicle concerned was for parking and had not been designed for emergency braking under loaded conditions, but the LA said he could not accept this excuse and suspended two vehicles for 28 days.