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 
Transport Firm took no heed
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A Wolverhampton transport firm which failed to keep maintenance records after receiving warning and instruction in the matter had its 0 licence curtailed and partially suspended under Section 69 of the Transport Act 1968 in Birmingham on Tuesday when Mr John Else, the West Midland LA, removed the margin of three vehicles from the licence and suspended throughout December the one vehicle specified.
The court heard that vehicles operated by the company, J. Barratt and Sons Transport Ltd, had received one delayed and two immediate GV9s in 1970 and two delayed GV9s in 1971. In 1970 there had also been a conviction for operating a vehicle with defective tyres.
Mr Gordon Sharpe, a DoE vehicle examiner, told the LA that he visited the company on September 24 1971 to inspect its maintenance records. As these were not available at the time he made a second visit on September 28 and was shown statements of work carried out on the vehicles, which were unsatisfactory. He added that it was admitted to him on this occasion that the company had never sent its vehicles to the agents specifically for preventive maintenance work.
In his evidence, Mr John C. Barratt, director of the firm, said that he had kept a book in which all work carried out on the vehicles was recorded, and added: "I did not appreciate I should use these record forms". He went on to say that arrangement had been made to have preventive maintenance inspections carried out every 8000 miles.
Mr Else said he was certain that the company had taken steps to improve its maintenance recording system, although there would have to be some penalty as, in the past, the company "had not taken heed".