AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

A&J Bull 'shame faced'

4th July 1996, Page 20
4th July 1996
Page 20
Page 20, 4th July 1996 — A&J Bull 'shame faced'
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?

1by Derren

Hayes • South East tip per operator A&J Bull has had its 0-licence cut by two vehicles for two months after directors admitted at a public inquiry they had let standards of vehicle maintenance slip.

The company, based at Mitcham in Surrey, was called to the Eastbourne inquiry after the Vehicle Inspectorate issued four immediate and seven delayed prohibitions following a check in March of 26 of the firm's 94 vehicles and 34 trailers.

The company's annual test pass rate was also below the national average, with 20 of 47 vehicles failing the test first time in 1995, said the VI.

Traffic Commissioner Brigadier Michael Turner added that the firm failed to report to the Traffic Area Office a convic tion for defective breaks and tyres at Dorking Magistrates Court in November 1995.

Richard Rawlence, representing the firm, said it didn't dispute the %Ts findings but didn't realise the conviction had to be reported. This is a proud company that comes to you very shame faced,he told Turner.

Rawlence said the company had introduced weekly tyre and break tests, begun random checks on vehicles and revised daily check procedures.

Turner said: "Measures have been taken to correct the problems but it has taken a long time. It shouldn't have been left to the VI to start things moving."