AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

One month's reduction for repeated prohibitions

21st December 2006
Page 32
Page 32, 21st December 2006 — One month's reduction for repeated prohibitions
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 FIRM that received three prohibitions over five years for loose vvheelnuts has had its licence authorisation cut from three vehicles to two for one month.

Stockport-based David Clow was warned by North Western DTC Patrick Mulvenna that further maintenance problems would result in him "suffering some commercial damage".

Vehicle examiner Paul Snelson told the TC he had carried out a maintenance investigation in April following the issue of an S-marked prohibition for defective tyres. Safety inspections were meant to be carried out every six weeks, but there was a gap of II weeks in the inspection records for January and some were not properly completed.

However, inspection records produced at the hearing were satisfactory and showed the six-weekly period was now being adhered to.

Three prohibitions had been issued over the past five years for loose wheelnuts — and the vehicle prohibited for defective tyres was used for a period after the prohibition came into force.

The DTC commented that the 100% initial failure rate at annual test raised questions about the quality of the inspections being carried out by the maintenance contractors.

Clow said the vehicles now went to the contractors a week before the test was due. He checked the vvheelnuts every morning with a toffee hammer and had checked them on the morning of the latest prohibition when they seemed tight. From now on they would also check them as they left the quarry.

He could not say why the vehicle had been used after the prohibition had come into force.

The DTC was concerned there was a list of defects on an inspection record where no action was taken and which was marked"inspection only".Clow denied he could not afford necessary repairs; he claimed the contractors had said the vehicle was roadworthy.


comments powered by Disqus