1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202 
Drivers' reports ignored but / 1
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
operator gets second chance rr
A COMPANY WHOSE drivers repeatedly reported defects before action was taken to put them right has been given a second chance.
Leek-based Higton Plant & Bulk Haulage, with a licence for two vehicles and one trailer, had been called before West Midland Traffic Commissioner David Dixon at a Birmingham disciplinary inquiry A decision on action against its licence has been adjourned until next year to give it a chance to put matters right.
The TC said a previous company. Brook Plant Services, run by the same directors, had its licence revoked in May 2004 after a history of maintenance problems. Higton was granted its licence in July 2004, with a warning.
Vehicle examiner Harry Marsh said he examined two vehicles and a trailer in April, issuing one immediate prohibition, one delayed S-marked prohibition and a defect notice.
The inspection records were not satisfactorily corn pleted and inspection intervals had been exceeded. Some defects were repeatedly reported before action was taken.
Paul Higton, son of sole director Beryl Higton, said the Renault given the delayed prohibition was now being maintained by Renault dealers Allports Truck Centres after the previous contractor accepted culpability for some of the defects.
Though the drivers did not hand in defect reports daily. they were telephoned and asked if there were any defects, he added; explaining to the TC that it had not always been possible to get vehicles booked in when they were due for inspection.
The TC said that though he considered no blame attached to the company in relation to the two prohibitions,it was quite clear that the maintenance system fell far short of what was required.
The company gave an undertaking to have an independent audit of its maintenance system carried out by the end of October.