Haulier had two failures in new equipment
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• When a Farnham haulier applied for an extra vehicle to be added to its licence, a fleet inspection was arranged — but a trailer received an immediate prohibition notice because the brake was inoperative.
On another occasion one of the firm's vehicles was presented to Guildford testing station and also received an immediate prohibition notice because of .defective brakes.
As a result Hutchings and Carter were summoned to appear before the South Eastern LA, Maj-Gen A. J. F. Elmslie, at Southampton last week under Section 69.
Mr D. T. G. Carter, a partner in the firm, said they obtained a conversion kit to convert the trailer from vacuum to air brake. Within two months there was a complete brake failure owing to rusting in the cylinder. Another conversion kit was obtained and fitted, and again there was a failure, found to be due to damage caused by the kit lying in store for a number of years.
For the firm, Mr A. L. Lowth submitted that for a haulier to have two failures with new equipment, even in these days, must be considered unfortunate. He submitted that it was not a matter which should be held against the firm.
With regard to the other prohibition, it might be wrong to take a vehicle to the testing station if one suspected it might not pass. But it was plain that if one presented the vehicle one got another chance within a few days of having the failure cleared, but if one did not present the vehicle one had to start all over again on the appointments system. He contended that the firm was not putting the public at risk; the fault was that the brakes had been relined but had not had the opportunity of being bedded in.
The operator was now applying for one extra vehicle immediately, and two more in the future. In the circumstances, however, he did not press the application for the two in the future. But facilities were sufficient to cope with one more vehicle, leaving a margin for emergency work.
The LA said he had been impressed by the way Mr Carter gave evidence and would take no action under Section 69. The application for additional vehicles would be refused, but he would be prepared to consider a further application in three months' time.