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 
Fleet reduced due to maintenance issues
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TWO OWNER-DRIVERS operating in partnership have had their three-vehicle licence cut to two because of maintenance problems.
Rotherham, S Yorks-based John and Geoffrey Green, trading as Pronto Transport. had been called before the North-Eastern Deputy Traffic Commissioner Mark Hinchliffe.
Vehicle examiner John Williams said he had carried out a maintenance investigation in October, examining one vehicle and issuing an S-marked delayed prohibition for a serious lapse in maintenance.The vehicle had been inspected by the firm's maintenance contractor only two days previously There was no system in place for drivers to report defects.
Williams detailed three other delayed prohibitions, a refusal to clear and a variation notice. John Green said they had three vehicles, but one was rarely used and that was inspected every eight weeks. When a vehicle examiner had come round in 2004 he had said that as they were the drivers they did not need to fill in a daily check sheet.
Green undertook that all the vehicles would he inspected every six weeks,would have a daily nil defect reporting system, and that the safety inspections would include a Tapley meter brake test.
In cutting the licence, the Deputy TC said the firm had a poor maintenance record,but he took account of the fact that the maintenance contractor had written apologising for the prohibition imposed during the maintenance investigation. 'Me failure to record defects during daily walk-round checks was a serious matter and he did not accept that Vosa had indicated they need not do so. However, he was satisfied that the brothers wanted to do things properly.