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 
Firm's shockint record
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A Liverpool transport firm whose past maintenance record was said to be "deplorable" received a partial licence suspension when called before the North Western LA, Mr C. R. Hodgson, in Manchester last week.
Austin Buckley Road Transport Services, which had been called to court under Section 69, was told by Mr Hodgson that in view of presented evidence he could not overlook what he described as a "shocking record" and therefore suspended for one month a vehicle and trailer from the fleet of six vehicles and four trailers.
Earlier, Mr W. Hunter, a DoE vehicle examiner, stated that as a result of previous magistrates' convictions against Austin Buckley he had carried out a fleet inspection at the firm's Liverpool base on March 6 this year. On examining four vehicles and a trailer he discovered that the overall condition of these units was poor and he issued one immediate and three delayed prohibition notices. The defects found, he said, were serious, and included defective brakes and worn tyres. Mr Hunter added that the firm, in his estimation, owned enough tools and equipment to carry out proper maintenance and that the depot yard "only needed tidying up".
Giving evidence in defence, Mr J. Shackley said that before joining the staff of Austin Buckley he had been employed by the firm as a "freelance mechanic" and went on to explain the difficulties the company had had to face with its vehicle maintenance. Three vehicles, he said, had presented particular problems and a lot of time was spent on repairing these and for this reason it had been difficult to operate a proper maintenance system. He went on to say that after joining the company he and an assistant had taken steps to improve maintenance matters and that the vehicle which had attracted the immediate prohibition notice had been disposed of after the examiner's visit.