Examiner refused to clear repaired vehicles
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Friday October 13 proved to be an unlucky day for Worcester haulier Mr Philip Haines when a DoE vehicle examiner carried out a routine fleet and maintenance inspection at his depot. For Dn inspecting the three vehicles operated by Mr Haines, the examiner issued two with delayed GV9s and for this reason he was called before the deputy West Midland LA, Mr J. Shufflebotham, in Birmingham DO Tuesday, under Section 69.
The examiner, Mr Charles Breeze, told the deputy LA that he visited Mr Haines's premises and found that two of the three vehicles operated had a number of minor defects and imposed delayed GV9s which came into effect the following day. When he came to inspect maintenance records relating to these vehicles he found that they were not comprehensive as they had been made out on sheets of lined paper but he added "they did give some indication that maintenance inspections were being carried out weekly". Mr Breeze went on to tell the deputy LA that on this occasion he was told that only inspections and minor repairs and servicing was carried out in the onevehicle garage and repair shop which Mr Haines rented; larger repairs were undertaken by a local garage.
When the two vehicles were presented for prohibition clearance, said Mr Breeze, several defects were discovered and clearance therefore refused at that time.
Mr Haines explained that since the inspection he had made arrangements for the garage to carry out monthly inspections and to keep the necessary records although he himself still intended to make weekly inspections.
On deciding to curtail Mr Haines's 0 licence by the removal of one vehicle for one month commencing December 5, the LA commented that he was being lenient but warned Mr Haines that he would not be given the same chance if he ever appeared again in court under Section 69.