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
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220 
South Eastbrn LA criticizes BRS system*
Page 60
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FOR the, second titrk Within a year, Southern British Road Services Ltd last week had five vehicles curtailed from its Operators' licence for two months for poor maintenance at a public inquiry at Eastbourne.
Giving his decision, the SE Licensing Authority, Maj-Gen A. F. J. Elmslie, said that he had taken into consid4ration that the company had inherited unsatisfactory maintenance facilities and that, beino a1,vare of this,'it was taking steps to remedy the position. He appreciated that this took time. He also noted that the company had disposed of its trailers of similar type to that which had provoked the fleet inspection and subsequent inquiry.
However, said theiLA, the preventive maintenance documentation left something to be desired and the company must make up its mind as to what constituted a satisfactory procedure. During the inquiry it had become apparent that inspection and remedial action had terided to run in together so that it was not possible to determine what defects had been found, what action had been taken to remedy them and by whom both the inspection and the remedial action had been undertaken.
In evidence, vehicle inspector Mr Richard Surtees said that he had conducted a fleet, inspection in December last year, at the company's Burgess Hill depot. This had followed the discovery, at a roadside check, of one of the company's trailers on which the turinable coupling was so loose as to be liable to become detached at the next roundabout. During the fleet inspection, examination of 21 vehicles had resulted in the issue of two immediate and three delayed prohibitions. One of these involved another trailer with a loose turntable connection. The facilities at Burgess Hill were considered unsatisfactory by Mr Surtees and the documentation was not satisfactory either.
In relation to the records, Mr Surtees said that the system seemed to be to inspect the vehicles and remedy any defect where found then to tick all the items listed on the defect report as if no defect had been found.
This was contested by Mr David. Keene, appearing for Southern BRS, and two inspection sheets showing defects found and remedied were produced. However, Mr Surtees pointed out that these sheets were not signed.
Vehicle examiner Mr J. T. Lyon gave evidence of a fleet inspection at Dover in February at which a vehicle with a serious brake defect was discovered and prohibited. Mr Lyon thought that this was probably an isolated incident as no indication could be found of when the defect had occurred and the vehicle was due for its monthly inspection on the following day. However, neither the facilities nor the records at Dover were satisfactory.
Mr Jack Mather, Ind of the company, outlined its maintenance policy and said that a depot at Cuckfield had been designed to maintain the vehicles at Burgess Hill and that plans for the improvement of facilities at Dover depot had been finalized after four years negotiation with British Railways. Over £11/4m had been spent on maintenance in 1972, £1.9m in 1973 and £1.7m to date this year, said Mr Mather-.