AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Examiner's concern• For boss's workload

7th September 1979
Page 19
Page 19, 7th September 1979 — Examiner's concern• For boss's workload
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

. LANCASHIRE operator, David Duxbury, of Heskin, was illed to public inquiry because a vehicle examiner felt that he tight be taking on too much personally.

Despite his good record, David Duxbury, of Heskin, who had pplied to add two vehicles and two trailers to his existing cence for seven vehicles and seven trailers, came before the Forth Western Licensing Authority, Roy Hutchings, at Manch;ter.

Vehicle examiner David Les said he had examined two vehicles and two trailers in ,ebruary, and found them to ■ e satisfactory. The vehicles vere all comparatively new, of urge capacity, and engaged ipon international traffic. kcceptable inspection records vere produced.

There were no underneath nspection facilities, and the vorkshop was capable of iccommodating only two ractive units. Inspections and ninor repairs were carried out )3T the licence holder and maor work was undertaken by he vehicle manufacturer's nain agents.

The growth of the fleet vould put too great a strain on dr Duxbury since he managed the business as well as looking after the vehicles, thought the examiner.

In evidence, Mr Duxbury said his vehicles spent four weeks abroad, covering approximately 7000 miles, then they spent a week in this country, during which time he went over them. This meant that he examined about two vehicles a week.

The intention was to regularly operate eight vehicles, with one kept as a spare. It was a modern fleet and he felt he could cope with nine vehicles. If in the future, he decided to expand further, he would then take on a full-time fitter.

Granting the application, Mr Hutchings said the vehicle examiner had been quite right to recommend that the application be considered at public inquiry.


comments powered by Disqus