Inspection times ignored
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A Bedford operator's failure to stick to stated inspection periods, despite a warning letter, has led to a vehicle being suspended from his licence for a month, even though no prohibitions had ever been imposed.
Patrick Quailey, who trades as Gazelle Distribution, of Goldington, Bedford, with a licence for two vehicles, was called before Eastern Traffic Commissioner Brigadier Compton Boyd at a Cambridge disciplinary inquiry.
DOT vehicle examiner Andrew Souter said Quailey had been sent a warning letter in March 1994 after it was discm• ered that his inspection periods had become extended. During a maintenance investigation in April. it was again apparent that inspection intervals were not being adhered to, and gaps between inspections varied between eight and 20 weeks.
Boyd commented that warning letters were sent for a purpose vF,) and he expected operators to respond to them.
It was a serious matter to receive a warning letter and extremely serious to ignore it.
Quailey's one vehicle had attracted no prohibition notices and its initial pass rate at the annual test was 100%, said Souter. A recent visit had revealed that the stated six-week interval between inspections had been adhered to since April.
Quailey said he had had difficulty in obtaining inspection sheets from his maintenance conn-actor, and had therefore changed contractors in December. He now had a flowchart system and the date of the next inspection was entered on the inspection records. He told the IC that he had never received the warning letter.
Reducing Quailey's authorisation from two vehicles to one for a month, Boyd said that operators made promises about the system as well as vehicle condition, and Quailey had brought the public inquiry upon himself. Though there were redeeming features, there was a penalty to pay, he added.