AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

LA advises personal supervision

23rd May 1969, Page 34
23rd May 1969
Page 34
Page 34, 23rd May 1969 — LA advises personal supervision
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?

• At a Section 178 inquiry in Birmingham last week Mr. J. Courtney, of Birmingham, was told that he should personally supervise the maintenance of his vehicles. The West Midland LA, Mr. J. Else, suspended from Mr. Courtney's licence three vehicles for three months.

An MoT examiner, Mr. G. Sharpe, said that he had carried out a fleet inspection between February 11 and 21 and had issued seven prohibitions of which three were immediate. He said that the general standard of Courtney's maintenance was riot very high. Mr. Courtney employed only one skilled fitter and one unskilled man.

It was pointed out by Mr. Else that a warning had been given to Mr. Courtney in November 1968 and that since then he had appeared in magistrates' court in January to answer charges of overloading and defective eq uipment.

Mr. Courtney, who is a Band C-licensee employing 15 drivers, said that he was in the demolition business and his vehicles were affected by shock loading. A lorry which was perfect in the morning could well return later in the day in need of repair. As regards maintenance, he said that it had been arranged for a local garage to have one vehicle a week to overhaul and his own fitters would check one lorry a day. At weekends three or four part-time fitters came in and two of these attended regularly. This maintenance procedure had been in operation for about four weeks. Mr. Courtney also said that he was moving from his present premises this year and the new site would have better maintenance facilities.

When asked whether or not he kept a chart for planning vehicle checks, Mr. Courtney said he expected that the fitter did this. Mr. Else said that he was the owner and he should know these things. The LA also pointed out that Mr. Courtney had been warned but apparently all corrective action had been left to his men. Too much had been delegated to others and it appeared that the owner himself had only a slight knowledge of his vehiclemaintenance situation.