Prohibitions detrimental o industry
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Every goods vehicle operator had to alize that the road haulage industry had a id image in the eyes of the public, said Mr R. C. Samuel-Gibbon, the Western LA, a Section 69 inquiry at Barnstaple last z.ek. Every time a vehicle acquired a ohibition. he said, it was an admission to e detriment of the industry as a whole.
Mr J. T. Lyons of Springfield, North Lofton, a plant contractor, had one vehicle ispended for one month and only two ;hides and one trailer granted instead of tree vehicles and one trailer that had been 3plied for.
Mr Samuel-Gibbon said he found it isquieting that an examination by Mr yens and his fitter of one vehicle the day efore the visit of a vehicle examiner failed ) detect any of the nine defects listed on the iV9 then issued.
A Barnstaple builder, Mr Frank Ernest liederman, of Vicarage Street, was given three months in which to get a proper contract for the service and inspection of his motor vehicle drawn up with a responsible garage.
Mr Samuel-Gibbon told Mr Biederman: "If you have not got it right by then, you will have to reconcile yourself to the fact that someone else will have to do your haulage for you." It bothered him, he said, to find that the vehicle examiner had spent a lot of time visiting Mr Biederman between 1969 and 1972, telling him he would have to pull his socks up regarding his goods vehicles.
It was stated on behalf of the LA that inspections of Mr Biederman's vehicles had only taken place at long intervals — three in 1970 and one in 1971. Mr Biederman maintained he had always told his drivers to keep the vehicles in good repair and to take them to a garage in anything was wrong.