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
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208 
Three GV9s but 4-vehicle increase agreed
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Despite three GV9s imposed when a vehicle examiner called to examine the company's vehicles, Ker Indus Ltd was granted a four-vehicle addition to its operator's licence by the Metropolitan LA last week. After the company applied for the addition of the vehicles to its licence Mr G. Childs, a Metropolitan area examiner, visited the fleet to inspect the existing nine vehicles.
What he saw led him to impose prohibition orders on three of them, one immediate and two delayed. Other vehicles he saw would have received GV9s if the operator had not declared them out of service. Mr Childs said that although the premises were adequate for the maintenance of the number of vehicles operated, records were incomplete — vehicle inspections seemed to be only every three months — and the total staff of one. fitter was "totally inadequate" for nine vehicles.
Counsel for Ker Indus said the company's vehicles were engaged in carrying fuel oil and were used only during the five winter months. During that time they averaged only 60 miles a day but he accepted that the system of checks was inadequate. A monthly inspection system was now in operation and two full-time fitters were now employed. Mr C hilds said that these moves would he adequate for maintaining the enlarged fleet of 13 vehicles if the application were approved.
Mr D. I. R. Muir, the LA, said he would take no action and grant the application as requested although it was "very unsatisfactory that a company of this status should have vehicles in such a condition".
In a second case heard, Mr Muir refused to grant an addition of one vehicle to a Hertfordshire haulier's 0 licence and he suspended two existing vehicles for one month after being told that three immediate GV9s were imposed when an examiner inspected the vehicles parked on some waste ground. Mr E. Price, the examiner, said that when he visited Mr A. E. Lewis at his home in Ware, Herts, Mr Lewis admitted the defects on the vehicles and was unable to provide maintenance records. When the examiner returned to clear the vehicles all defects had been pin right but the records were still not available. The concern had no maintenance facilities of its own but used a freelance engineer operating from a farm seven miles away.
Mr Lewis said that the vehicles had formerly been operated entirely on site but in December 1970 he had applied for and been granted — a two-vehicle, five-year 0 licence. Since the examiner had called he had begun renting premises for £40 a month and maintenance work would shortly be handed over to a large garage within a mile of the new operating centre. He produced maintenance records which, he claimed, covered the vehicles' lives. Concluding, Mr Muir said that the vehicles were in "a very bad condition indeed".