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 
Truck was a 'pure mistake'
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A steel fabrication company from Seaham in Co Durham has lost its 0-licence after its only vehicle collected four immediate prohibitions and two variation notices in less than a year. iastle Fabrication & Installation appeared before North :astern Traffic Commissioner Tom Macartney at a Leeds lisciplinary inquiry.
Vehicle examiner Ian Atkinson said that in April 2000 the iompany had been fined £450 for using the vehicle with an incalibrated tachograph. In June 2000 it was given an immeHate prohibition and additional defects were found when the /Aide was presented for clearance, The same thing happened a month later, following an mmediate prohibition for a brake fluid leak—and a further mmediate prohibition was issued during a roadside heck in October.
Atkinson reported that he had issued another immediite prohibition when he carried out a maintenance investitation in April.
Inspections were due every six weeks but the records ;hewed gaps of up to 14 weeks. No defects had been vcorded by the driver since August 2000 and a warning let:er sent to the company in September 2000 appeared to lave had little effect.
"The wagon was a pure mistake to buy," director David Ilingworth told the TC. "The wagon itself was a wreck. It was a iure waste of money and a waste of diesel."
Asked about the tachograph conviction, Illingworth said the tachograph had not been working when they bought the truck. They fitted another tachograph, but that did not work Ather. Illingworth concluded that they had learnt the error of their ways and had disposed of the vehicle.
Revoking the licence, the TC said it was clear that the company's maintenance systems had been inadequate and that it had been let down by its maintenance contractor.
He directed that if the company reapplied for another 0licence the application would be considered at a public inquiry.