Company warned over standards
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
1 ; Despite being given a warning over its maintenance steni dards, Birkenhead-based Technical Demolition Services succeeded in doubling the authorisation on its licence from two to four vehicles at a Leeds public inquiry.
Vehicle examiner Geoffrey Chan said he had carried out a maintenance investigation in September following the issue of an immediate prohibition to one of the company's vehicles in a roadside check. He examined two vehicles, issuing two delayed prohibitions.
The maintenance records showed inspection periods varying between seven and 10 weeks. Drivers were reporting defects verbally. Maintenance was contracted out and the contractor's garage area was blocked by various components, restricting the usefulness of the workshop. While a maintenance system was in place, the vehicle's condition indicated that it was not fully effective.
In reply to James Backhouse, for the company, Chan said the driver of the vehicle given the immediate prohibition had noticed an air leak in the braking system and was returning to base when he was stopped. Chan agreed with North Western Deputy Traffic Commissioner Brian Horner that all the items listed on the prohi bitions were Matters which should have been detected by the drivers.
Projects manager John O'Dowd said that the company obtained its own licence in 1998. Two of the three prohibitions related to an old vehicle they had inherited when they purchased a local company. They had spent an awful lot of money on that vehicle. It was no longer cost effective and would be disposed of in the next couple of weeks.
The inspection periods had become extended as that vehicle had constantly been in the workshop. On the recommendation of the vehicle examiner they had introduced a written drivers' nil daily defect reporting system. The garage had been tidied up and no prohibitions had been issued since September. There was an open cheque book as far as maintenance was concerned.
He accepted that the operation had not got off to a particularly good start.
The Deputy TC said it was disappointing that the company had incurred three prohibitions since the licence was granted, but it had clearly got the message now.
However, he warned that if the company appeared at another public inquiry much more serious action would be taken. "The writing would be on the wall," he concluded.