AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Examiner criticised use of trailer form

25th November 1999
Page 19
Page 19, 25th November 1999 — Examiner criticised use of trailer form
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?

A senior vehicle examiner giving evidence at a York disciplinary inquiry has criticised a Humberside company's use of an inspection form

taken from The Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness for traders.

Pocklington Steel Structures, which holds a licence for one vehicle and three trailers, had been called before North Eastern Deputy Traffic Commissioner Brian Homer.

Senior vehicle examiner Olive Allison said the licence had been granted in August 1998. He had examined two semi-trailers during a recent maintenance investigation, issuing two advisory defect notices. The inspection records for the trailers were poor and the format was for vehicles rather than for trailers.

The vehicle records were also poor, he added, and there were only a few for trailers. There were only two records, 12 weeks apart, before an immediate prohibition had been issued to the vehicle in July, showing a significant maintenance failure. The semi-trailer was given a delayed prohibition in July.

The records were not a true reflection of the condition of the vehicle and trailers as there was no detail of any defects. There was no evidence of any forward planning or of any driver defect reporting system.

In reply to Gary Hodgson, for the company, Allison agreed the maintenance investigation had been carried out without warning. And he accepted that the format of the trailers records had been taken from The Guide to

Maintaining Roadworthiness.

Hodgson said the company had now changed the form to one giving more detail; there was now a forward planner; inspections had been cut from 12 to six weeks; there was a driver defect reporting system; and the vehicle would be submitted to the test station between annual tests for an audit check on the work carried out by the maintenance contractor.

Taking no action other than to issue a formal warning, the Deputy TO said he wanted to make it dear that he would come down heavily if there were future problems. He warned the company that he would order a further maintenance investigation within 12 months,

Tags

Locations: York

comments powered by Disqus