AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Tipper man wins over environment application

25th May 1985, Page 14
25th May 1985
Page 14
Page 14, 25th May 1985 — Tipper man wins over environment application
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

YUILL AND DODDS, the Scottish haulage contractor which ran coal daily between Hunterston terminal and Ravenscraig steel works during the miners' strike, has been granted an additional six vehicles and six trailers on its operators licence.

Scottish Deputy licensing Authority Alex Brand refused to take account of representation on behalf or a Dr Scobbie who lives adjacent to Yuill and Dodds' operating base.

It was alleged on his behalf by his counsel, Andrew Frame, that Dr Scobbie had been roused from sleep 'several times" in the early morning by the sound of heavy vehicles starting up.

Mr Brand also felt that no action should be taken against the company under Section 69 of the 1968 Transport Act, relating to nine GV9s. Senior Vehicle Examiner, Mr S. Green, said there were doubts about the company's maintenance system. The period between inspections varied from 4,000 to 15,000 miles.

Mr Green said that the fleet was one of the most modern he had seen with nine A-registered and 41 B-registered lorries. He also said that there was no criticism of the company's facilities or maintenance staff.

The examiner agreed that a cracked windscreen could have been caused by a stone thrown at it by a picketing miner.

Michael Whiteford, appearing for the company, refuted the suggestion that there were no records of trailer maintenance. Yuill and Dodds operates a combined tractive unit and trailer maintenance record since the vehicles are never uncoupled.

Managing director Jimmy Yuill said that because of pressure during the miners' strike, the company had based mechanics at Ravenscraig steel works to keep the vehicles running.

He Claimed that the GV9s had been issued against manufacturers' defects and two against faulty trailer parking brakes.

Drivers on the Hunterston and Ravenscraig run had not been put under pressure during the dispute. The company had no knowledge or a conviction for speeding against one man nor an hours and records offence by another.


comments powered by Disqus