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 
kirAZ Maintenance outlay greater than income
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
LICHFIELD operator had .ematurely last week, after a s outlay on maintenance was Vehicle examiner Kenneth irling told South Wales LA onald Jackson that this had )me to light when he looked to a prohibition on one of ric Stockin's vehicles. Mr ickson was deputising for rest Midlands LA Arthur rabtree, who was on holiday. According to Mr Girling, the rohibition was marked Ieglect", and five of the ten efects were dangerous. A rosecution was pending.
Mr Stockin had told him iat a vehicle on which an nmediate prohibition has een imposed last August had .nce been broken up for )ares.
There was neither operating entre nor facilities, but ehicies were inspected every x weeks by Pickfords Heavy .aulage — Mr Stockin carTing out repairs wherever he Duld. The inspection records wealed considerable defects. Mr Girling examined one chicle at a car park in Licheld and imposed a defect otice for six faults, although lere appeared to have been Kten sive work carried out on le vehicle before his inspecon. his Operator's Licence terminated Licensing Authority heard that often greater than his income. In his opinion six weeks between inspections was too long and two vehicles were too many for Mr Stockin to cope with.
Questioned by Michael Carless, for Mr Stockin, Mr Girling said he would be satisfied if Pickfords did both the inspections and the maintenance. It appeared Mr Stockin was running vehicles into the ground and then getting rid of them.
In evidence Mr Stockin said he only had one vehicle in his possession, the second vehicle having been stolen. He now has a written contract with Pickfords for servicing and repair as well as inspections, and felt that six-weekly inspections were sufficient provided he had careful drivers.
Questioned about the prohibition in August, Mr Stockin said the police had stopped the vehicle for a weight check and then called in the vehicle examiners. The problem was the type of work undertaken and the wrong type of driver.
The LA replied that Mr Stockin must decide what work his vehicles were suited for. Mr Carless replied that Mr Stockin had been in business for three years and the incident was a momentary lapse. The situation had now been put right.