'One of worst prohibitions ever' results in 3-month suspension
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• When an operator enters into a vehicle maintenance contract with a commercial garage the responsibility for the maintenance of the vehicle lies not with the garage, but with the operator.
This was emphasized by Maj. Gen. Sir John Potter in Leeds on Wednesday when he suspended for three months an operator's licence authorizing two vehicles and two trailers held by Pak Enterprises and General Haulage, of Heckmondwike.
. The company had been called before the LA under Section 69 of the Transport Act 1968 following an inspection Of one of the two vehicles on June 22 this year, at a Yorkshire heavy goods vehicle testing centre, when an immediate GV9 had been issued.
The vehicle examiner who had issued the prohibition notice, Mr L. W. Oliver, said that on inspecting the vehicle he had found that it was in a "very dangerous condition with numerous major and minor defects". He went on to say that he had had great difficulty in making arrangements to examine the vehicle and had been refused permission to inspect it when he visited a local garage which, it was claimed, was contracted to maintain the vehicle. He said that on visiting Pheasant Garage he had been told that no arrangements had been made for the maintenance of the vehicle and only running repairs were occasionally carried out there. For this reason he was refused permission to use the garage's facilities to examine the vehicle.
One of the two partners in the firm, Mr D. Jagger, said in evidence that he had made arrangements with the garage to carry out regular repairs and maintenance, all of which the garage would record in a vehicle repairs book. However, it was not possible to produce this book and the only proof of a preventive maintenance system was invoices. Mr Jagger added that since the inspection he had approached another garage which had commenced to maintain the vehicle and had, in fact, rectified the defects discovered on the inspection within six days.
Representing the firm, Mr D. Ashton said that Mr Jagger had not fully realized his obligations regarding 0 licence require
ments, but had now taken steps to r'cctify the situation.
After hearing the evidence the LA remarked that the GV9 was one of the worst he had ever heard about, and was forced to take strong disciplinary action. However, as the company had taken steps to put its house in order, he would not revoke the licence, but merely suspend it for a three-month period beginning on September 1.