Freelance mechanic did not keep proper records
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A Birmingham company which operated two vehicles on own-account work had its 0 licence curtailed under Section 69, in Birmingham this week, when Mr John Else, the West Midland LA, removed throughout the month of November one of the vehicles specified on the licence.
The court heard that the company, Johnson and Bacon Brothers Ltd, had been called to the inquiry following a maintenance inspection on August 10 this year when one of the vehicles was issued with an immediate prohibition notice. Mr D. A. Sager, the DoE vehicle examiner who carried out the inspection, told the LA that as the company itself had no maintenance facilities whatsoever all maintenance work was carried out by a "freelance" vehicle mechanic at his own premises. It was also the responsibility of the mechanic to keep all records of repairs and inspections which he carried out on the vehicles. But when Mr Sager examined these records he found that although they were of a recogni ed type they had not been completed prope ly.
A director of the firm, Mr M. Branson, said that when the licence had rst been granted it was decided that vehicle maintenance contract should b entered into with Bristol Street Motors, one of the major Birmingham Ford dealers. However, this contract had not been made and the maintenance work had been assigned to the mechanic. Mr Branson added that since the inspection his company had decided to go ahead with the Bristol Street Motors' contract and no longer made use of the service offered by the mechanic.
Representing the firm, Mr N. Carless, pointed out to the LA that the vehicle which attracted the immediate GV9 was an old Ford and with this type of vehicle it was very difficult to locate and repair the kind of braking defect which was the cause of the GV9.