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
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184 
Maintenance failure leads to licence cut
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A SKIP-I I1RE OPERATOR whose maintenance contractor was blamed for vehicle defects, including badly-adjusted brakes. has had its 0-licence cut from five vehicles to three. The firm was reminded that maintenance remained its responsibility, even if contracted out.
Oldham-based JCB Skip Hire (2004) had been called before North-Western DeputyTraffic Commissioner Mark Hinchliffe.
Vehicle examiner Darren Robinson said he had issued an S-marked prohibition, indicating a serious lapse in maintenance, for a significantly worn shackle pin on a vehicle that had had its safety inspection a few days before.The inspection record was still with the maintenance contractor.The defect had been noted but the record had been signed off as the vehicle being fit for service.When that vehicle was produced for clearance, a variation and refusal notice was issued because brake efficiency was low.
Robinson carried out a subsequent maintenance inspection, examining two vehicles; one was given a prohibition for maladjusted brakes.
Director Brian Pearce said that previously the firm received the inspection records with the bill at the end of the month. It now got a copy with the vehicle on the day it came back and every defect was put right before a vehicle was returned. He was now happy with his maintenance contractor and gave undertakings in relation to the company's maintenance arrangements.
The Deputy TC said if a contractor let an operator down,the operator needed to take action and provide evidence to the TC that he had done so, otherwise the TC would blame the operator. He felt the company had been unfortunate. The S-marked prohibition arose due to a failure by the maintenance contractor. It was also regrettable that the service brake-related prohibition was as a consequence of a faulty part.