Aren't we doing enough, Vosa?
Page 10
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
After reading Will Shiers' leader in CM(19 December 2013), I'd like to share with readers that we too were issued with what I consider an unnecessary PG9.
It was issued at Ross on Wye on 10 December at 10am for an underinflated inner tyre on a tri-axle step-frame low-loader. The trailer had been into a main dealer on 6 December for a six-weekly PMI and had left our base on the morning of 9 December and had not been back to base. The driver had completed his pre-shift
checks on both mornings and had reported nothing. Yet we were issued with a PG9 even though the driver used his on-board tyre inflation unit to inflate the tyre to a more appropriate level. The vehicle then came back to base where
the tyre underwent a minor repair for a puncture. The PG9 was lifted following reinflation.
Where is the sense and benefit in us having a PG9 issued against us?
What more could we, or indeed the driver, have done to demonstrate that we had done all we could to ensure that this trailer was road worthy?
What has Vosa achieved by this? When we see rogue operators every day,
competing with us and taking work from us, no action is taken when they are reported to the Vosa hotline, then we are dealt with like this. I am appalled with this but, as with most things in this industry, we have no voice. Name and address withheld by request