New system, new problems
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• When the Oldbury, Worcestershire, branch of a national haulage firm introduced a new vehicle maintenance system it led to a deterioration in the condition of its fleet and a general extension in the periods between preventive maintenance inspections.
This was part of the evidence heard by the deputy West Midland LA, Mr J. 3hufflebotham, in Birmingham when Murphy Brothers (Transport Division) Ltd, of Dldbury, applied for a new licence to cover 16 vehicles.
It was stated that the company, which lad made the application in order to take )ver a fleet of vehicles originally operated py another company within the group, had n the past relied on outside garages to carry )ut all repairs and preventive maintenance nspections. However, it had been decided to ntroduce a new system whereby the vehicles operated by Murphy Brothers mould he repaired and inspected at the irm's own London and Leicester bases.
Shortly after the system was introduced VIr L. A. Nichols, a DoE vehicle examiner, visited the Oldbury depot and inspected tight vehicles, two of which he issued with mmediate prohibition notices.
As a result of the introduction of the new iystem he found that vehicles were not )eing inspected at regular intervals and maintenance records relating to inspections not being kept in full.
Giving evidence on behalf of the company. Mr C. R. Ford, Oldbury depot manager. said that the company had now reverted to the old system of vehicle maintenance --which had proved satisfactory in the past.
The decision to maintain vehicles at the two Murphy Brothers' depots, he said, had been an "experiment".
On deciding to grant a licence to cover only those vehicles in possession, 11 in all, the deputy I.A commented: "There is no room for an 'experiment' in a big company like Murphy Brothers."