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 
'Considerable improvement' but firm still has licence cut
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A MERSEYSIDE firm appearing at its second Public Inquiry in 18 months had its licence cut from 13 vehicles and 14 trailers to 12 vehicles and 11 trailers for a week. North-Western Deputy Traffic Commissioner Patrick Mulvenna said action was necessary against P&STransport (Merseyside) but recognised "considerable improvement" had been made in maintenance arrangements since the last Public Inquiry.
The Deputy TC granted a licence for 15 vehicles and 16 trailers to successor company P&S Rentals, set up for tax reasons. This takes effect from the end of the curtailment period and is conditional on the surrender of the P&S Transport licence.
The latter company appeared at a previous Public Inquiry in August 2004 and vehicle examiner Colin Haselden said it had made considerable improvements since then. However, its failure to adhere to an undertaking to have roller brake tests carried out at every alternate safety inspection, an apparent decline in annual test preparation standards and incomplete inspection records raised serious cause for concern.
Transport manager Michael Parry said P&S Transport had changed its maintenance contractor as it was unhappy with its previous contractor.
Managing director David Griffiths said he felt the company had done its best, hut it was in the hands of other people as P&S did not have the facilities to do its own in-house maintenance.
It was having problems with its new maintenance contractor, but fewer than with the previous firm,