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 
Too much attempted with inadequate facilities
Page 42
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Although the preventive maintenance system employed by two Nottingham brothers was inadequate, this did not deter them from attempting to maintain not only their own two tippers but also a number of vehicles operated by other hauliers.
This was heard at a public inquiry in Nottingham on Tuesday when the brothers, R. and W. G. F. Baxter, trading as Ingham Bros, were called before the East Midland LA, Mr C. M. Sheridan, under Section 69. Giving evidence on behalf of the DoE, Mr P. J. Newton, vehicle examiner, said that he visited the brothers' premises, a disused railway goods shed, on February 22 and May 24 1972. As the railway lines had been ripped up the base was left uneven and was unfirm for vehicles. On the first inspection he had noticed a large hole in the middle of the floor and had been told that this was to be a maintenance pit. However, on the latter visit he observed that no progress had been made with the construction of the pit.
Referring to maintenance records, Mr Newton went on to say that on the earlier' visit, records relating to both vehicles were produced although the information given on these was insufficient and inadequate. .
His later visit showed that the partners had started to keep records and from these he ascertained that each vehicle had received a maintenance inspection once every eight weeks. On inspection one vehicle had received a delayed prohibition notice and it was partly because of this that he felt that it would be better if the vehicles received a monthly preventive maintenance inspection.
Mr W. G. F. Baxter told the LA that they were now keeping proper records. and vehicles in future would receive a monthly inspection. The two tippers were not engaged on site work.
The LA said he had three grounds on which he could revoke, suspend or curtail the licence. These were that the partners had not fulfilled their declarations of intent regarding preventive maintenance inspections and the keeping of records, that there had been nine convictions relating to drivers' hours offences and that they had failed to maintain a register.
He decided to curtail the licence by deleting a margin of two vehicles which had not been acquired.
At the same inquiry the LA refused a new application by Mead and Sons who had intended to use the maintenance facilities of Ingham Bros.
He refused the application, for one vehicle, on the grounds that he was not satisfied with the maintenance facilities offered by Ingham Bros.