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
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172 
Suspension follows 'lethal' maintenance
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A NORWICH international haulier has had its 0-licence suspended for three and a half months, after the Eastern Deputy Licensing Authority heard that serious accidents had been avoided by good luck rather than by good maintenance.
Refusing an application for an extra vehicle on Abbey Transport Ltd's eight-vehicle and fivetrailer licence, DLA C. ArnoldBaker said that the licence had to be suspended as the vehicles were a threat to public safety.
Vehicle examiner J. C. Tooley told Mr Arnold-Baker that the premises were dirty and congested, with vehicles parked outside on the road and cranes and spares "scattered about the place". In total, there were 13 prohibitions under consideration. On two occasions, vehicles were refused clearance at the testing station, and had to be towed back to base. One of these, according to Mr Tooley, was in a "lethal state" with the brakes soaked in oil and grease.
Another vehicle had its loadsensing device tied up with string. Maintenance which was supposed to be carried out every two weeks was only done monthly, according to Abbey's records.
Company director Jack White pointed out that the company specialised in low-loader work, much of it carrying boats. Some of the vehicles were becoming old and had been working seven days a week.
He disagreed about the seriousness of the defects des cribed by Mr Tooley, and alleged that the examiner had told Abbey's fitter to move a vehicle under repair from a pit. When the fitter refused, Mr White said the examiner demanded that the vehicle would be called into the testing station the following morning. After this he found every fault possible.
Mr Arnold-Baker said it was unfortunate that Mr White was not legally represented, and added that he had not produced any evidence to support his claim that the faults arose out of the dispute between Mr Tooley and the fitter.
A history of bad maintenance dated back to 1977. One vehicle on a journey to France was in a poor condition only a week after supposed maintenance.