1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228 
Is Vosa vulnerable to legal action?
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FOLLOWING THE legal writeup concerning Peter Williams (CM 9 November) I wish to ask why the vehicle in question was able to drive away.
It would appear from the article that Mr Williams could only drive away from the test station after being charged hyVosa.
Nothing in the article indicated that he was not going to get the tyre changed at the fitter's location prior to the Vosa examiner getting involved.The article I refer to does not state all the facts, however it does introduce an interesting anomaly.
By preventing any work being carried out on site —due to HSE issues—Vosa is leaving itself wide open to court action in the future.
The industry is experiencing increased levels of litigation on a daily basis concerning the condition of vehicles and trailers. so how can Vosa still issue delayed prohibition notices that allow unroadworthy vehicles and trailers to be used on the road network?
Set aside the MoT failures returning to base for the moment. as in theory any vehicle or trailer presented for test should pass first time every time, the MoT test being the minimum roadworthy standard permitted by the Construction & Use regulations.
After a delayed prohibition notice has been issued to allow the vehicle/trailer to continue its journey,or proceed to a location for repair. who is responsible for the condition of the vehicle/trailer during that journey?
Should an incident occur during this journey the driver could be held responsible, the operator could be held responsible for permitting an un roadworthy vehicle to be used on the road, and Vosa could be held responsible for permitting an unroadworthy vehicle/trailer to he used on the road.
Prosecution under health and safety law for endangering the public is also a possibility for Vosa in the future unless a new policy regarding unroadworthy vehicles/ trailers is implemented.
The entire industry, including the regulatory bodies, has a duty to ensure that all vehicles and trailers on the road do not pose a hazard to the general public.
Vosa sends drivers and operators to the courts and the Traffic Commissioners on a regular basis for action toile taken due to noncompliance with the many laws that govern this industry.lhis is to be applauded as the industry is one of the safest in the world.
However, is it morally or legally correct for Vosa to allow unroadworthy vehicles/trailers onto the public highway when an operator, driver, or mechanic would be charged if found allowing the same vehicles/trailers to proceed onto the public highway?
Martin Barnes Somerset