LA unhappy when haulier reappears
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Morecambe haulier Stephen Hancock was given a warning about his maintenance standards when he appeared at a Manchester disciplinary inquiry before North Western LA Martin Albu.
Hancock, who holds a national licence for seven vehicles and six trailers, had been called before the LA following the issuing of a series of prohibition notices.
Vehicle examiner Brian Hayhurst said variation notices had been issued when further defects were discovered on a vehicle and trailer presented for clearance in April and June. He agreed with John Backhouse, for Hancock, that many of the prohibitions related to trailers and Hancock had no trailers of his own.
Backhouse said daily check sheets had been introduced, incorporating a nil return as well as duplicate driver defect reporting books.
A commercial garage had a contract to check brakes, lights and smoke emissions quarterly. To solve the problems associated with collecting trailers from Heysham Docks, the drivers had been instructed to inspect them at the docks.
Thomas Fidler said he had been employed as a driver by Hancock six months ago. He had previously been transport manager of Mirrorplan Haulage for 23 years. He had been asked to take on the responsibility for maintenance.
The company had contracts with Bay Trailers and Merchant Ferries. These companies based fitters at each side of the ferry crossing to repair any defects discovered in the trailers. decided to retire and he had asked Fidler to take over the supervision of the maintenance. The inspection pit had been sealed to prevent water seepage and proper lighting was being installed. This was due to be completed within 10 days.
One vehicle, prepared for test by an outside contractor, was given an immediate prohibition for brake defects, said Hancock.
Albu pointed out that Hancock had attended two previous public inquires. After the licence was renewed in 1992 things were satisfactory for a time but they started to go wrong again in 1994. The prohibitions issued suggested that standards were slipping.
Backhouse said a number of the faults that had occurred were ones that could occur in use between inspections.
Since 1992 only one prohibition had been marked as "maintenance failure evident.
It was not suggested that vehicles had not been inspected regularly. Hancock had been taken by surprise by the retirement of his fitter. Albu said he was not happy when an operator appeared before him more than once over maintenance. However, the appropriate action seemed to have been taken, albeit belatedly.