AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Rickaby licence grows

2nd June 1988, Page 16
2nd June 1988
Page 16
Page 16, 2nd June 1988 — Rickaby licence grows
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• Despite maintenance problems, Bradford-based Rickaby and Lee had its licence increased from 30 vehicles and six trailers to 42 vehicles and 18 trailers, at a Leeds public inquiry last week.

North Eastern Deputy Licensing Authority Brian Horner decided not to take any disciplinary action, and to grant the increase, after hearing evidence from A B Commercials which maintains the vehicles.

Vehicle examiner David Mowram said he had imposed immediate prohibitions on one vehicle and two trailers during a fleet check in January. He had seen vehicles leaving without drivers can-ying out proper safety checks, and two vehicles stopped at the gate had lighting defects. A number of prohibitions had been imposed in roadside checks, a vehicle presented for test in March had been given an immediate prohibition for serious brake defects, and in February 1986 the prime cause of a serious accident on the M621 motorway was said to be a defective vehicle belonging to the company. Hired trailers did not appear to be included in the maintenance schedule.

Managing director Ian Tutton said the maintenance had been contracted to A B Commercials in March 1987. Rickaby and Lee was very pleased with the arrangement, believing it was getting a professional service from a professional organisation. He felt the main problem had been a failure by drivers to report defects adequately.

The system had now been changed. Spot checks were carried out, and any driver who had failed to report a defect was severely disciplined.

With one exception, the company no longer hired any trailers — its policy was to purchase new vehicles. Turnover this year was projected at over 23 million, with pre-tax profits over 20.25 million. It was a competitive market and maintenance was important.

In his decision, Horner said he was satisfied that the company had the basis of a good maintenance system and that it was capable of maintaining the additional vehicles. He warned that a more serious view would be taken of further problems