LA's 'get in line' warnini
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• No action was taken against W. Groom Transport Ltd, of Birmingham, called before the West Midland LA, Mr .1. Else, under Section 69 of the 1968 Transport Act last week. However, the firm was told by Mr Else: "Unless you bring yourself into line with present licensing requirements, you will find yourself with no vehicles at all."
Mr T. Meadows, senior vehicle examiner, said that after certain of the firm's vehicles had received GV9s earlier this year a two-day check.had been carried out; of the 44 vehicles and one trailer in operation 10 were issued with delayed and two with immediate GV9s. Prior to the inspection, work had been carried out on the vehicles which were, on the whole, in a fair condition.
The company usually had a staff of six mechanics but only four were on.duty at the
time of the inspection. There was no ra or pit, the yard was in an unsatisfact condition and the company could prod no records of outside work on the vehi other than invoices. There was no proof 1 vehicles received monthly maintena checks or any intermediate inspections.
Mr S. T. Green, company secretary, I Mr Else that although a redevelopment r meant the company would have to cha premises next year, it had neverthe installed a large pit; all tyre and electr work was contracted out. The premises a good stock of spares and were equip with a steam cleaner.
A major problem, he said, was that as vehicles were engaged in work to the vi of £260,000 a year it was difficult to I time for maintenance.