Responsibilities shirked — LA curtails licence
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Just because an operator was not mechanically minded he could not "shut himself up in a box" and leave the 'inspection and maintenance of his vehicles to others without hazarding his licence and his livelihood.
This warning was given by Northern LA, Mr J. A. T. Hanlon, to a Whitehaven demolition contractor-haulier at Cockermouth last week, when it was alleged that Mr John Harper Graham had not fulfilled inspection and maintenance undertakings given when he was granted a licence for three vehicles in 1969.
Vehicle examiner Mr J. M. Cant, of Whitehaven, said that in September a prohibition order was placed on the older of the two vehicles Mr Graham was operating — a Bedford four-wheel tipper on which 10 defects were noted. He visited Mr Graham's garage at Jacktrees Road, Cleator Moor, and found there were no records of drivers' reports. No work was carried out under maintenance contract. Some inspection and maintenance records were available but these were in a very scrappy condition.
On his second visit the previous day (Wednesday) he found a very great improvement in the premises but the records available were still of a very primitive nature.
Mr Graham told Mr Hanlon that he had been paying a mechanic regularly to inspect and maintain the vehicles every two or three weeks. "I left it to him as I am not mechanically minded. I know I have been a bit lax about records," he admitted.
The prohibited lorry had, he said, been in a very bad accident in November, 1970, when it was struck by a locomotive on a level crossing at the dock. It had been in a repair garage for 15 weeks and when it was returned he was assured by the garage that it was in a safe conditon. He assured Mr Hanlon that he now had a vehicle defect report book.
"Mr •Graham seems to take the attitude that as he is not mechanically minded he can leave this to other people, but he cannot shirk his responsibilities in this way," said Mr Hanlon, quoting a High Court ruling that in law an operator is responsible even in the extreme case of defects found in a new lorry after only a few days on the road.
Mr J. D. Reid, for Mr Graham, said Mr Graham was now very much more aware of his responsibility and of the danger of losing his licence if he did not show some evidence of this realization.
Mr Hanlon curtailed the licence from three to two vehicles and suspended one vehicle for a month.
At the same hearing an Aspatria (Cumberland) operator was granted an additional articulated vehicle and simultaneously had his existing five-lorry fleet curtailed by one vehicle for six months, for breach of undertakings given when his licence was granted in March, 1970.
He was Mr David A. Harrison, of Westnewton, Aspatria, who, said Mr Hanlon, had operated a six-wheel tipper "in an appalling condition" last August on a contract run with a load of fertilizer from Co. Durham. Eighteen defects were listed when he vehicle was prohibited.