Operator did not know meaning of GV9
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• An Aldershot site clearance contractor, engaged in transport for more than 20 years, told the deputy South Eastern LA, Mr G. Mercer, in Reading last week, that he did not know what a GV9 was until he received one in September last year. The operator Mr A. C. West, with a licence for two vehicles had been called before the deputy LA following a visit by a vehicle examiner, when the GV9 had been issued.
Mr W. Addington, the vehicle examiner, said he inspected the two vehicles and issued one with a delayed GV9 having found a number of loose bolts on the chassis. There were no records but he agreed with the firm's representative, Mr J. Newton, that maintenance had been carried out and that the looseness of the bolts could have occurred at any time between inspections because of the rough site work in which the vehicle was involved.
At the moment, Mr Newton explained, one of the vehicles was maintained on an
open yard but a ramp was being constructed and this would then be covered. Mr Addington agreed that the facilities in that case would be satisfactory but an inspection ramp without cover would not be adequate.
The other vehicle, Mr West told the court, was engaged solely on demolition work at an army camp at Vigo in Kent. Until Mr Newton told him he did not know that because the vehicle never operated on public roads he did not need an 0 licence for it. Mr West said that he was unable to read or write and this was the reason why maintenance records had not been completed. However, now RHA forms had been acquired and his mechanic was filling out the forins as required.
The deputy LA deferred his decision for six weeks, by which time the inspection ramp should be completed, to see if the situation was then satisfactory.