Heavy haulier is warned
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• North Western LA Martin Albu has renewed the licence held by Merseyside heavy hauliers B&S Northover but he issued the company with a warning about maintenance.
The company was applying to renew its licence for five vehicles and five trailers, instead of the 10 vehicles and 10 trailers previously authorised.
Director Graham Northover said the company planned to run four vehicles with one spare for maintenance purposes: its work involves moving machinery of up to 80 tonnes.
The LA commented that keeping vehicles in good condition was all the more important when carrying heavy plant.
DOT vehicle examiner Eric Bober said that when he made a maintenance check the company had just moved into new premises. The facilities were sparse but he was told that the company planned to build an inspection pit. lie was given a letter of intent about brake efficiency tests being carried out at the test station.
Northover said that when the vehicles were tested he was disappointed with the efficiency found on one vehicle, a Volvo 6x2 low-loader. To get the required braking efficiency the combination had to be loaded: when re-tested with a load on board it passed easily. He agreed that two immediate prohibitions had been issued to a vehicle and trailer during the fleet check, along with a number of defect notices.
Since the fleet check a full-time mechanic had been employed and a more effective maintenance system had been introduced. He had also sat down with the drivers and explained their responsibilities.
The company had rented part of the former Birds Eye factory at Kirkby and a pit in was be installed as soon as written permission had been received from the landlord. In the meantime trailers were run up on ramps.
Taking no disciplinary action. Albu said the company had attracted quite a number of prohibitions. It seemed that steps had been taken, albeit belatedly, to put that right so he was prepared to give the company a chance to continue operating and prove the new system was working.
But he warned that if the company appeared before him again because of further prohibitions he would take a more serious view of the situation.