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 
LA revokes one vehicle licence
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• When Kroton Engineering (Newport) Ltd. presented its lorry for clearance after a GV9 listing 17 defects, it was found that some had not been rectified — and four more were discovered.
Last week the South Wales LA, Mr Ronald Jackson revoked the licence and told works manager, Mr D. J. Lower: "No application for another licence will be considered for six months."
In evidence, Mr Lower said that the driver did weekly visual inspections and a garage did the necessary repairs.
When the LA requested records, Mr Lower said he did not know anything about them. When asked whether the driver was a qualified mechanic, he said he had not inquired.
He added later: "We realize now that
our system is not as good as it should be."
And on the same day, the LA heard a detailed explanation of a GV9 listing seven defects from Mr David Loveluck owner of David Loveluck Ltd, who said that the vehicle had been perfectly in order when he checked it the morning of the inspection.
The air leak was caused by the driver failing to couple-up correctly. The silencer was loose and the brake pipes were chaffing against the chassis.
Although the battery had been changed, the retaining bracket had not been tightened. With regard to the trailer: the headboard was split, a broken pin had been found and a small crack in the landing peg was evident.
Mr Loveluck also told the LA that when the vehicle was towed back it was damaged by the towing vehicle. This had necessitated new parts which were unobtainable and the lorry was still off the road.
He added that the vehicle had been checked the day before the inspection and the driver had not reported any defect.
Mr C. Rosser, for Mr Loveluck, said that the details did not show a lack of maintenance, Deciding to take no action, the LA commented: "I think this all occurred because of the driver, who has been dismissed."