AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

System met guidelines

10th December 1998
Page 25
Page 25, 10th December 1998 — System met guidelines
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?

• While accepting that Cleanaway's maintenance sys tem complied with DOT guideines, the Haverhill magistrates fined the company £400 with £55 costs for using a vehicle with defective brakes.

The Brentwood-based company pleaded guilty to using a 31-tonne four-axled rigid on 23 April when all its brakes were not maintained in good and efficient working order. The magistrates heard that the clevis nuts on the offside second axle were loose, enabling the push-rod to slide inside the clevis and make contact with the brake adjuster.

For Cleanaway, Andrew WooVali said it was a multinational company operating some 967 vehicles. Its servicing system complied with the DOT's

Guide To Maintaining Roadworthiness. A full safety

inspection was carried out every six weeks; vehicles were checked weekly and every driver carried out a daily walk-round check.

The vehicle concerned had been serviced on 14 April, said Woolfall. Repairs were carried out by a probationary mechanic and his work was checked by the foreman mechanic. The company was satisfied that the vehicle had gone back on the road in proper working condition. It was engaged on rough work in quarries, tips and landfill sites.

Either there had been a component failure or the nuts had worked loose in the seven days since the service, he added. No defect had been reported by the driver. The company was satisfied that he would not have been aware of such a defect, he concluded, although it would not have affected the braking performance of the vehicle and there were no road safety issues.