AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Authorisation cut after fleet check

20th March 1997, Page 25
20th March 1997
Page 25
Page 25, 20th March 1997 — Authorisation cut after fleet check
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• A Cheltenham skip-hire company given two days' notice of a fleet inspection presented three vehicles to an examiner that would have received immediate prohibitions if they been on the road, it was claimed at a Cheltenham disciplinary inquiry.

He said he had examined four vehicles, issuing three immediate prohibitions and four defect notices. Defects included loose wheelnuts, a worn king pin, a broken spring leaf and a 115% imbalance in one vehicle's brakes. Dates and mileages were missing from some of the inspection records and there was no formal forward planner, Tudor added.

For the company, Frank Randall said the prohibition history indicated there had been no past problems. A certain laxness had crept into the system and that had now been addressed, as was shown by the fact that vehicles had been stopped since and found to be satisfactory. Despite the two days' notice, the vehicles had not been prepared for the vehicle examiner, he told Madrell.

Cutting the authorisation on the licence from eight vehicles to six, Madrell said this would ensure that the company operated within its capabilities.

Tags

People: Tudor, Frank Randall

comments powered by Disqus