'Serious Case' adjourned for Purle key witness
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The Metropolitan LA, Mr D. I. R. Muir. adjourned a Section 69 case against Purle Brothers (Holdings) Ltd because a key witness, Mr P. Newman, the service director, had been urgently called to the DoE in the Midlands to advise on poisonous waste disposal. The company, with a licence authorizing 150 vehicles and six trailers in the area. had been called because of infringements at a depot in Rainham, Essex, and another in Mitcham, Surrey.
Mr D. E. Slattery, a vehicle examiner, said a vehicle belonging to Purle Waste Disposal (Thames) Ltd and based at Rainham had been brought to the Purfleet test station by the driver who complained that the brakes were faulty, and that the driver had told the depot staff who had ignored it and "shrugged off" the complaint. The faults, including lack of brake fluid and a leaking foot valve, amounted to 12 items and the vehicle was given an immediate GV9.
Mr B. G. Gurry, a second vehicle examiner, said that shortly after the GV9 had been issued at the end of June, last year, he had visited the Rainham premises and had found that this particular vehicle was no longer there even though there were records still applicable to it. The records in general, he said, were very inadequate and very much out of date. Later in August, 18 of the 33 vehicles operated from the depot were inspected and in spite of the fact that before the inspection the vehicles were checked by Purle's staff, three immediate and eight delayed GV9s were issued. One vehicle, when presented for clearance, was found to have been damaged during the repair and was issued with a second GV9.
Mr Gurry considered that repairs were only done when required and although the facilities were adequate he believed that the staff lacked any direction from the management.
Mr R. F. Champion, representing Purle, said that since the GV9s in August no further prohibitions had been issued.
Mr T. A. Egon said he had been appointed depot manager at Rainham in April. Only one of the original fitters at the depot remained, and the transport manager and foreman fitter had been replaced. The system for maintenance had also been completely changed and in addition a vehicle examiner employed by Purle had recently been appointed and he carried out his own inspections. Since the fleet inspection, five vehicles had been spot checked by the DoE and had all been found to be satisfactory.
The vehicle examiner for the area in which the Mitcham depot was situated, Mr E. Nichols, said that following an inspection of one vehicle, when an immediate GV9 had been issued, a fleet inspection was instigated. However, between the beginning of May and the end of June last year many appointments at the test station for the inspection of vehicles had been broken with the result that of the 45 vehicles at the depot only 13 had been inspected. Of these, two received immediate GV9s and nine vehicles received delayed prohibitions. Mr Nichols then informed his area officer of the situation.
Mr Champion did not dispute the situation and since that time the manager had been replaced and had left Purle. The new manager, Mr E. R. Seal, said he had been appointed in September and since that time all self-employed fitters had been replaced and a new foreman had now also started work. The depot in Mitcham, which was admitted to be inadequate, was now about to be moved to brand new premises which would be fully equipped. Since September, added Mr Seal, several inspections of vehicles had been carried out by DoE inspectors but no GV9s had been issued.
At this point the LA concluded that the matter was too serious to be settled without his hearing evidence from the service director and it was agreed to adjourn the case until Mr Newman was able to be present.