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 
Vehicles defective despite four days notice
Page 64
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Of four vehicles belonging to W. J. Higman and Son Ltd inspected by a vehicle examiner one was issued with an immediate GV9, one was issued with a delayed GV9 and one with a defect notice, this despite four days' notice having been given that an inspection was going to take place.
This was stated by the vehicle examiner, Mr S. S. Martin, during a hearing before the Western LA last week at Falmouth at which the company was appearing under Section 69 and at the same time applying to renew its licence for six vehicles with two to be acquired. Mr Martin added, in his evidence, that there was also no form of preventive maintenance operated.
Mr W. J. Higman produced records for three months but when these were examined it was found that two of the months were for 1971 and not 1972. The LA, Mr J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon, curtailed the licence from six vehicles to three and granted -the new licence also for three vehicles. He told Mr Higman that there had been a serious degree of carelessness, particularly concerning the records.