AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Heanor escapes suspension

5th May 1988, Page 38
5th May 1988
Page 38
Page 38, 5th May 1988 — Heanor escapes suspension
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?

• Heavy haulier Heanor Haulare avoided a four-week licence suspension by "the skin of its teeth" when it appeared before Eastern Deputy Licensing Authority Humphrey Lewis at disciplinary proceedings following a "pretty dreadful" maintenance record.

After being told that his original proposal of a suspension would have a horrendous effect, probably leading to the company's demise, Lewis instead curtailed its licence to 14 vehicles and 62 trailers for a month, and thereafter planned to renew it for 18 months for 31 vehicles and 62 trailers. The licence had authorised 39 vehicles and 62 trailers, and Lewis was told that 28 vehicles and 62 trailers were operated, with a further three vehicles about to be delivered.

Vehicle examiner Ronald Alderton said Heanor Haulage had a history of prohibitions — a maintenance investigation in June 1986 had led to the issue of 10 defect notices. Further prohibitions were issued after another maintenance investigation in August 1987, when one prohibition notice and 17 defect notices were issued. Immediate prohibitions followed in August and September 1987 and March 1988.

In January, said Alderton, he inspected a Heanor vehicle at the request of the police after it had caused an accident on the M6 motorway. All 10 wheel-nuts had come off a nearside wheel, which had crossed the central reservation and had struck two cars on the opposite carriageway.

A visit on 20 April revealed that inspections were still too infrequent, said Alderton.

Conceding that there had been serious shortcoming, managing director Peter Searson said one reason had been a lack of supervision caused by his frequent absences abroad. His cousin, also a director, was now responsible for maintenance and the vehicles were inspected every four to five weeks. The maintenance facilities had been improved and an additional workshop was being equipped.

Lewis commented that it was a "pretty dreadful" twoyear history. The company had ignored warning after warning and things had become worse rather than better. There could be few more shocking results of inadequate maintenance than what had happened on the M6.

For the company, Ian Rothera said that a lot of wheels came off vehicles every year, without any explanation. Whatever the serious problems in the past, steps had been taken to try and bring about a substantial improvement.

The company's financial consultant, Andrew Bowd, said that the threatened suspension would seriously jeopardise regular contracts with three principal customers, one with British Rail Engineering, which employed about 50% of the company's capacity. If the company was able to survive after a month's suspension, it would be on a much smaller scale. If turnover was reduced from the break-even point of 2100,000 a month, there would be substantial losses and a major pruning exercise.

He shuddered to think what attitude the company's bankers would adopt, he said.

Lewis warned that should the company appear before him in the future due to further serious failures in its vehicle maintenance, he would be unlikely to be deflected from his duty again.


comments powered by Disqus