AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Maintenance a 'matter of degree' plea

10th June 1966, Page 47
10th June 1966
Page 47
Page 47, 10th June 1966 — Maintenance a 'matter of degree' plea
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?

TAST week, Musselburgh and Fisherrow Le Co-operative Society Ltd. appeared before the Scottish Licensing Authority, Mr. A. Birnie, at Edinburgh to show cause why its licence should not be suspended or revoked under Section 178 of the 1964 Traffic Act. Four vehicles were suspended.

Mr. P. Henderson, general manager of the Society, gave evidence. He agreed that for three years the Society had been working under pressure to attain a suitably fit transport fleet. He also agreed that he was reasonably satisfied with the present standard of maintenance.

In the eight years prior to January, 1966, the Society had received 16 GV9s, 14 of which were delayed and two immediate. During the period January to April, 1966, 35 GV9s had been received, 11 of which were immediate and 24 delayed. This had resulted after an examination of 64 vehicles.

The LA suggested that such a state of affairs was shocking. Mr. Henderson, however, held the view that it was a matter of degree. -The standards held by the Ministry of Transport and Musselburgh and Fisherrow differ", he said.

The Society claimed that it was concerned about the situation. "When did you become concerned?asked the LA. "Prior to the issue of the GV9s", said Mr. Henderson, who explained that co-operative societies were complex organizations and that transport was only one part of it. The Society was facing a replacement expenditure of £46,000

in a period of five years on a fleet of vehicles for which the capital value was £65,000.

There had not been any accidents nor had there been a conviction in eight years which had been caused by faulty maintenance, but the LA held the view that this was because of good fortune and the shortage of examining staff.

No maintenance system

Mr. J. Conway, the Ministry of Transport examiner, stated that there was a lack of lubrication in the vehicles examined. This, he claimed, was because there was no maintenance system. Vehicles had been poorly maintained and there was neither power-greasing nor a greaser employed for the purpose. Under examination, Mr. A. M. Raeside, transport manager, agreed that a greaser had not been employed for three years and he considered that the mechanics were better qualified for this purpose than a semi-skilled operator.

The LA held the view that the voice of the transport manager was not being heard in the society as it should. He suspended four vehicles for three months and left the Society to select the vehicles. Suspension begins on June 13.

Mr. Birnie said: "Your vehicles will certainly be examined again at some stage in the future and I very much hope I will have a good report then."


comments powered by Disqus