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
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232 
TC adjourns case pending depot checks
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
CONSIDERATION OF disciplinary action against the North-Western Area 0-licence held by Pilkington UK has been adjourned becauseTraffic Commissioner Beverley Bell requires maintenance investigations to be carried out at all the company's depots within her area. The company had been called before the TC at a St Helens disciplinary inquiry following an unsatisfactory maintenance investigation at its Salford depot; it holds a restricted licence in the North-West for 60 vehicles and nine trailers.
Vehicle examiner Karl Finnerty said maintenance was contracted out to various agents. He carried out the investigation at Salford in July due to the serious defects listed on a prohibition variation notice. Twelve vehicles were examined, and an immediate prohibition was issued for a tyre defect and a delayed prohibition for an air leak: the latter being S-marked for a serious maintenance defect.The initial pass rate at annual test was 67% ,which suggested poor preparation.
The prohibition that had initiated his visit should not have occurred had the vehicle been adequately prepared for annual test. The situation had not improved since a warning letter in January 2003 following a previous unsatisfactory maintenance investigation. In reply to Geoffrey Jones, for the company, Finnerty agreed the vehicle given an S-marked delayed prohibition had been sent in for repair and the repair had not been carried out properly. He felt the problem was that there had not been a quality audit of the maintenance contractors. Finnerty told the TC that the investigation had concentrated on the Salford depot.
Adjourning the proceedings, the TC said that she wanted to be absolutely fair and she needed to look at the whole picture.