AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Daf 'disaster'

9th February 1985
Page 21
Page 21, 9th February 1985 — Daf 'disaster'
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?

MAINTENANCE problems that led to Seamarks Coaches and Travel of Luton appearing at disciplinary proceedings before the Eastern Traffic Commissioners, were blamed on a 1980 Daf chassis, which company managing director Rolf Muller described as "disastrous".

The company holds a licence authorising 11 vehicles in the Eastern Area and it was also seeking to transfer 21 vehicles authorised in the Metropolitan Area following the traffic area boundary changes.

Commissioners' chairman Kenneth Peter said that between July and November of last year, 11 prohibition notices, including five immediates and 12 defect notices, were placed on Seamark's vehicles.

Mr Muller said a major factor had been the purchase of the Daf vehicles, which turned out to be a disaster.

The downtime was so considerable that some of the other vehicles did not get the attention they otherwise would have.

Of 32 vehicles operatad at the beginning of 1984, 15 were Daf.

A problem with a Daf had caused some financial difficulty, having cost the company a great deal of money.

Daf (UK) had agreed the company's claims following a meeting with top management.

A fleet engineer and new transport manager had been appointed at the beginning of November.

Vehicle examiner John Atkinson said the company's maintenance facilities were good but were not being used to anything like the best advantage. The company did not have a good system and in the past improvement had invariably been short-lived.

Malcolm Braid, the company's transport manager, said that since November there had been no further prohibitions and the company had a 100 per cent pass rate on annual test.

He had not experienced the Daf vehicles before he had joined Seamarks.

Taking no action and granting the variation application, Mr Peter said the vehicle examiner had been fully justified in his analysis of the situation last summer. However, the Commissioners had heard the arrangements put into effect since then.


comments powered by Disqus