Record inadequacies not notified, LA told
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• It was to be regretted that although there had been allegations during the Section 69 inquiry that the maintenance records of S. W. Cole and Sons had been inadequate there had been no reference to this in the letter of notification sent by the South Eastern LA. This was stated by Mr D. Turriff, representing the partnership, during his final submission at the end of a two day hearing.
The hearing was a continuation of one held in November last year when evidence From a vehicle examiner had been given of four immediate and seven delayed GV9s and two defect notices imposed since 1967. The firm had a licence authorizing nine vehicles, three of them specified at the moment.
Mr D. J. May, a partner of the firm based at Storrington, said that records that had once been used had now been replaced by ones based on FTA and RHA forms and this had answered a criticism of the vehicle examiner that defects found on checks had not been shown as being rectified. The most serious GV9, said Mr May, concerned a vehicle which. was in the process of being scrapped. At the time of the inspection in July it attracted a GV9 with 14 faults listed. The vehicle was not being used but had been taken to the testing station at the request of the vehicle examiner, added Mr May.
A statement on the back of the GV9 form had been signed by Mr May which indicated that the vehicle was to be scrapped and would not be used again but in fact, explained Mr May, the decision had already been taken and the vehicle had not been used. A letter had been sent to the LA asking for the vehicle to be removed from the licence.
For one period during the licence, said Mr May,'the firm had had a contract based next to a DoE test station but in spite of many spot checks no vehicle had received a GV9. The firm had had one conviction, in September 1971, for a faulty handbrake but this had been rectified at the roadside and a fine of £15, instead of the maximum allowable of £200, had been imposed.
The LA, Maj-Gen J. F. C. Ehnslie, showed Mr May his original signed application and asked him why the firm had had the GV9s. The fact that GV9s had been issued indicated that the statements of intent had not been fulfilled the LA pointed out. Mr May thought that the vehicle now scrapped had caused a lot of the trouble but he also agreed that the firm could have had greater control.
In his submission Mr Turriff said that the firm accepted that the records were not what they should have been but that was not the situation now. He thought that the vehicle examiner could have been a little more generous in his criticism and should have recognized the efforts of the firm to correct the situation. The firm had replaced two old vehicles with ones less than a year old.
The LA told Mr Turriff that it was not the duty of a vehicle examiner to give any advice. It was only his job to report what he found. The LA is to give his decision in writing.