Warning on 'haphazard' records
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• At a hearing under Section 69 in Manchester last week, the North Western LA, Mr C. R. Hodgson, took no action against an operator's licence authorizing five chides and seven trailers held by Blackburn Haulage (Lanes) Ltd, after he had been satisfied that the company had improved its vehicle maintenance inspection and recording systems.
A DoE vehicle examiner, Mr A. J. Evans, told the I,A that following a roadside check on May 24 1971 a vehicle was issued with an immediate GV9 and an inspection of the company's maintenance arrangements, facilities and premises was arranged. This inspection had revealed that the company had no maintenance facilities itself and kept no maintenance records "except on a haphazard basis". On a second inspection in September of that year it was discovered that records were still not being kept and a further vehicle was issued with a prohibition notice.
Mr D. W. Thomlinson, director, said that although Blackburn Haulage did not have adequate facilities he did make use of the premises of another company, in which he had an interest, to house the vehicles. In the past maintenance and repairs had been
carried out by a Preston garage and firm arrangements had now been made to extend this to a once-monthly inspection system and for a proper maintenance recording system to be introduced. On concluding his evidence, Mr Thomlinson said: "we are faced with the problem that as a small haulage company we are in the hands of the firm which carries out our maintenance."
The LA commented that although he would take no action in this case Blackburn Haulage should treat the inquiry as a warning.
At the same hearing Mr Hodgson decided to reserve his decision regarding action taken under Section 69 against the licences held by Ribble Valley Stone Ltd, Blackburn, the Ardphalt Asphalt Company, Middleton, and J. V. Lister of Bolton until further reports could be made by DoE vehicle examiners.
Both the companies and Mr Lister had been called before the LA following unsatisfactory inspections of vehicles, preventive maintenance and recording systems. The LA also decided to reserve his decision on an application by Mr Lister to increase his fleet strength by one vehicle and two trailers.