Raising the bar for responsiblity It's time for maintenance providers
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
to share some of the burden when things go wrong with a vehicle Flip over to the next page and you'll find an article that asks who should be legally responsible when it comes to the thorny issue of maintenance. The operator's licence clearly states that the operator bares sole responsibility for the roadworthiness of the vehicles they operate.
But what about those who own just trailers and sub out the traction? Or the dealers, workshops and hire businesses willing to make money by providing maintenance on behalf of the operator? Shouldn't they also take some responsibility when things go wrong?
If you run a haulage business with your own trucks and trailers and carry out all your own maintenance, then the answer is 'no'. If you run a haulage business with trucks and trailers but sub-contract the maintenance to a third party, or hire in vehicles and they commit to the maintenance, or you do only traction and haul someone else's trailers, then the answer is 'yes'.
For too long operators have carried sole responsibility. If a company provides maintenance as a service then it needs to carry some of the burden. At worst, under current legislation, a maintenance provider would probably only lose the work if a dissatisfied operator picks up a prohibition for a poorly maintained asset, yet that same provider is happy to charge for the benefit of having no responsibility.
Were the prohibition shared by the operator and maintenance provider then Vosa would have a richer seam of information to work from, and collective responsibility always raises the bar.