AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Warning for Longtown haulier

6th January 1967, Page 34
6th January 1967
Page 34
Page 34, 6th January 1967 — Warning for Longtown haulier
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?

rUMBERLAND haulier William Armstrong

(Longtown) Ltd. appeared this week before Northern Licensing Authority Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon to show cause why its licences should not be revoked, suspended or curtailed.

Mr. Gordon Matheson, a consulting engineer, said the firm's maintenance system had been ineffective and some of the vehicles were worn. But the position had now improved—two of the worst vehicles were off the road and had been replaced by a new vehicle.

For the last two months the firm had been keeping full records of every job done, under supervision of its chief fitter.

Mr. Matheson said: "I told Mr. Armstrong that maintenance should be slanted towards road safety. Maintenance work during the past two months had been very varied, but of the kind one would expect. I also suggested that separate records be kept for trailers."

Mr. Matheson added: "Work on gearboxes and axles is now being sub-contracted leaving morestime for the maintenance staff."

Mr. Hanlon said: "This is a warning and will be reviewed from time to time. I do not want to suspend or take away your licence."