LA asks: 'Do you think records are bureaucratic nonsense?'
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• When a vehicle examiner called at the premises of a Bedfordshire haulage contractor in May. three of the vehicles he examined would have merited GV9s. In fact, the prohibitions were never issued as all the defects were put right on the spot at the time of the visit.
Called before the Eastern LA, Mr H. E. Robson, at Cambridge on Monday was G. W. Peacock (Transport) Ltd of Biggleswade 'to answer charges under Section 69.
The DoE vehicle examiner. Mr Brian Halting, said that the defects he found on his visit included, on one vehicle, a broken spring and a tyre on an inner wheel so badly damaged that the canvas was showing; on a trailer a brake operating push rod was bent; while on a third vehicle part of the swan-neck coupling was loose. In addi
tion there were a number of lesser defects. Asked about maintenance and inspection arrangements the examiner stated that he considered the arrangements and facilities to be satisfactory although in the past the company had used an inspection form which was not entirely suitable.
Replying, Mr G. W. Peacock, managing director, said that the vehicles referred to were in for inspection at the time of Mr Hafling's visit. He felt that in at least one case the examiner had been a little harsh.
On the matter of inspection records Mr Peacock said he had now turned over to a more satisfactory type than those formerly used. He was asked by the LA whether he was convinced of the need for them""or do you find this a lot of bureaucratic nonsense?" Mr Peacock agreed that there was a need and that he was happy to comply.
The solicitor for the firm stated that the company had had an average of 11 vehicles on the road during the last two years. Between them these vehicles had travelled in excess of a million miles and had attracted only eight GV9s and this, he submitted, was not a bad record.
Summing up, Mr Robson said he did not feel that the evidence showed neglect or that effort had been spared to comply with regulations. He urged that the company consider the installation of an inspection pit as this might assist servicing and inspections—however, this was up to the company. No direction would be made on the operator's licence.