1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162 
We stburn's Section 69 and Eastburn's application
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• At a public inquiry in Liverpool on Tuesday, Mr C. R. Hodgson. the North-Western LA, decided to take no action under Section 69 against Westburn Haulage Ltd, Birkenhead, but to grant the application for a renewal of its 0-licence to cover seven vehicles.
Its associated company, Eastburn Haulage Ltd, was also granted an operator's licence for five articulated vehicles and four trailers.
The LA, granted the application after hearing evidence which indicated that since the inspection of Mr. F. Cooke, a DoE vehicle examiner, the company had taken steps to improve its vehicle preventive maintenance system and its keeping of records.
Mr Cooke said that when examined the vehicles operated by Westburn Haulage were found to be in an unsatisfactory condition. He issued one immediate and one delayed GV9.
Mr Cooke felt it was not a case where complete maintenance was non-existent but one where proper maintenance was lacking.
Managing director of Westburn Haulage, Mr G. A. Guest, said that for some time the company had been paying a garage £200 a week for maintenance work. However, this work had proved unsatisfactory and subsequently the company had commenced contracting its maintenance work to H. P. Hughes and Sons Ltd.