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 
Manufacturer was unaware of fault
Page 56
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Should a company be penalized for not spotting a fault of which even the manufacturer is unaware? This question was discussed at length at the Transport Tribunal on Monday.
Appealing against a decision by the South Eastern LA to remove the margin of 19 vehicles — reducing the fleet to 47 — was Meachers Transport Ltd.
Mr K. H. T. Schiemann, for the company, said that at the time of the decision the LA stated: "No further applications for additional vehicles will be entertained before July 1,1973."
Although Mr Schiemann claimed that there was no warrant in law for the LA to say that he would not entertain any application, it was not clear what he meant by the statement.
However, Mr Schiemann's main arguments centred around the two GV9s issued last year, one delayed for 1+ hours and the other for 21 days.
The most serious defect listed was a loose brake back-plate. Mr Schiemann told the Tribunal that his company had contacted the manufacturer, Scammell, to discover whether this was a common fault.
Scammell had looked at the lorry and said that once the bolts and plate had been secured at its factory, they usually lasted throughout the life of the lorry, except possibly in cases of accident.
"In fact", argued Mr Schiemann, "Scammell says that this plate usually remains undisturbed throughout the life of the lorry."
He added that it was not unreasonable to assume that the company had not checked this part of the lorry because it was generally accepted to be a part unlikely to wear.
Moving to the LA's statement, Mr Schiemann said that this was possibly designed to stop the company getting round a penalty.
He said that Meachers was an expanding company with contract commitments and lorries waiting to be placed on its licence.
The Tribunal decided to vary the decision curtailing 10 vehicles for three months.