V & G insurance victim before LA
Page 42
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The collapse of the Vehicle and General Insurance company was blamed by a Brentwood haulier this week for compelling him to sell half his fleet in order to raise sufficient capital to continue in business. The company. W. Webb (Haulage) Ltd, had been called before the Metropolitan LA under Section 69 because of faults found during an inspection of the five vehicles then in possession and which resulted in two delayed GV9s being issued.
Mr W. G. Webb, director of the company, said that although authorized to operate 10 vehicles only five in fact were being used. At the time of the inspection the company was carrying out its own maintenance in what, he admitted, were inadequate premises. Since then an agreement had been reached with Ready Mixed Concrete to carry out all maintenance and inspections on the five vehicles. Some of the haulage work carried out by the firm was under contract to RMC, although not exclusively, the remainder being for the Halls Aggregate Group and others.
The vehicle examiner, Mr W. F. McNellan, said the five vehicles had been inspected at an hgv testing station. The two GV9s had been issued and Mr Webb had said that in 12 years in the haulage business he had only received four other prohibitions. Mr McNellan agreed that the maintenance arrangements with RMC would be entirely satisfactory.
The LA. Mr D. I. It. Muir, said that he would take no action other than to accept the surrender of the five vehicle licences no longer required. Mr Muir did insist, however, that he would require to see the agreement between the firm and RMC in order to verify that the conditions were satisfactory.
At the same hearing a stern warning was given to a one-vehicle operator, Mr C. E. Carey of Penge, who had failed to keep any records of maintenance for his vehicle. In addition he had received a delayed GV9. As a result of a roadside check a vehicle thought to belong to Mr Carey was given an immediate GV9. Because of this another inspection was made and it was then that the delayed GV9 was issued. At the same time the lack of records was noticed and although Mr Carey had said that monthly and weekly inspections were carried out the vehicle examiner said that this was not substantiated by the poor condition of the vehicle.
In evidence Mr Carey said that although a vehicle had been checked at the roadside it had in fact been sold to a dealer and was no longer his. Mr Carey agreed that no records were kept at the time but this situation had now been corrected.
The LA said he had no wish to put a man Out of business by revoking the licence but Mr Carey had not measured up to the standards required by the Act. Mr Muir decided to give Mr Carey one more chance but warned that there would be another visit from a vehicle examiner in the near future.