AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Disgracefully kept vehicle a clear case of neglect

5th July 1974, Page 26
5th July 1974
Page 26
Page 26, 5th July 1974 — Disgracefully kept vehicle a clear case of neglect
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?

A "DISGRACEFULLY kept vehicle in a dangerous state" cost its operator curtailment and suspension when he appeared before the Eastern LA last week.

Mr P. Sweeney, P. Sweeney (Civil Engineering) Ltd of Houghton Regis, Beds, appeared before Mr H. E. Robson at Chelmsford under Section 69.

Giving evidence of a visit to a Bedford building site, a vehicle examiner said he examined one vehicle belonging to Mr Sweeney and issued a GV9. There were many serious defects and he considered•that they were in many cases the result of neglect. Regular inspection, he contended, would have shown them up. A second vehicle was not examined and had been involved in an accident on the site.

For his company, Mr Sweeney said that he had held a licence for 10 months and had used various garages during that time. The vehicle complained of had been inspected by a garage one week before the examiner's inspection and they had not referred any defects to him. He required to use one vehicle which operated on a site but carried waste to a tip on a public road. Mr Sweeney added that he had now made an inspection and maintenance arrangement with another garage.

Giving his decision, Mr Robson said there was clear evidence of neglect. This vehicle was "disgracefully kept in a dangerous state". There was no real evidence that the vehicle had been inspected since the licence was granted in August 1973. He took into account Mr Sweeney's claim that he had now arranged for garage maintenance but would want written evidence of this. The two-vehicle licence would be curtailed by one vehicle and the remaining vehicle suspended for three months. An inspection would be ordered for nine months time and further neglect would bring the risk of the licence being revoked, he said.

Tags

People: Robson, P. Sweeney

comments powered by Disqus