AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

BRS to appeal after section 178 penalty

4th February 1966
Page 71
Page 71, 4th February 1966 — BRS to appeal after section 178 penalty
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?

NOTICE of an appeal to the Transport Tribunal was given by BRS Ltd. at Eastbourne on Tuesday when the South Eastern Licensing Authority, Major-Gen. A. F. J. Elmslie, suspended a vehicle for one month, following a Section 178 inquiry.

Mr. R. Yorke, counsel for BRS, said they were bound to appeal, because the LA had not told his clients what they should do which they had not done, or what they had not done which they should do.

The LA said the penalty was for the operation of a vehicle on the road in such a condition as to constitute a danger to the public. Pending the submission of appeal documents the penalty was suspended.

Mr. Yorke said the case arose from the imposition on an immediate GV9 on a Sittingbourne vehicle of BRS at Newbury where a Ministry examiner tested the vehicle and found the brakes faulty. BRS took a most serious view of the case, said counsel, who read lengthy extracts from internal maintenance instructions issued since the newly appointed South Eastern district manager, Mr. J. W. Newman, had been in charge.

As a result of current instructions, which included an order to test the brakes of all vehicles under load, and for a more vigorous prosecution of "Ops 2" maintenance procedure, any defective vehicles in the South East would be taken out of service by February 28.

"I venture to suggest", Mr. Yorke told the LA, "that no operator has ever come before you with such a stringent undertaking."

Mr. J. W. Newman, South Eastern district manager of BRS, said that branch managers were in no doubt that responsibility for day-to-day maintenance rested with them. The faulty brakes found at Newbury were caused by a broken oil seal. The driver was a reliable man who had reported a number of defects in recent months, and these had been corrected.

The maintenance programme of BRS had not been maintained entirely according to schedule in recent months, added Mr. Newman, but he had given explicit instructions that no lapse must occur in future.

Mr. John Rattenbury, district engineer, South Eastern district, said the oil leak was only visible from an under-vehicle position. It would not have been detected by the driver's daily check. He could not estimate how long the oil had been on the brake linings. The brakes on the faulty vehicle had been reconditioned two months earlier. Apart from the oil on the linings there was no mechanical defect.

Appealing to the LA not to exercise his powers, Mr. Yorke said it was impossible to say there was any fault with BRS; no one could be blamed for things they could not help. The thorough BRS maintenance system deserved commendation, not the reverse. Giving his decision, the LA said he accepted that the BRS maintenance system was sound in principle. He might have taken a different view if there had not been a previous GV9, also for faulty brakes.

At the same hearing, Otto Bohm and Son, of Coxwell Lodge, near Farringdon, had a vehicle suspended for 14 days for maintenance defects to an artic used for scrap clearance from the Atomic Energy Authority at Harwell, on contract.


comments powered by Disqus