luE" Dispute over 'significant'
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Consideration of disciplinary action against a West Midlands haulage company was adjourned after its managing director disputed that prohibition notices imposed on its vehicles indicated a significant maintenance failure.
Truckhond, of Rowley Regis, was called before West Midland Traffic Conunissioner John Mervyn Pugh following the issue of three prohibition notices.
Managing director Kevin Rutter maintained that the defects were down to wear and tear on the job rather than bad maintenance. In one case a spring defect had been found midway between preventative maintenance inspections, which were carried out every six weeks, he said, and excess travel on a brake slack adjuster was because the slack ad juster was utils”. He claimed that a defective tyre simply had a small nick.
Replying to Mervyn Pugh, Rutter said he realised the company's licence was in jeopardy. He had now come off the road himself and looked round the vehicles every night. He agreed that the vehicles had not been freshly tested, as had been suggested in the letter calling the company to the public inquiry.
Adjourning the hearing until September, after Rutter had agreed to have the vehicles put through fresh annual tests, Mervyn Pugh said he required the vehicle examiner to be present on the next occasion as he had suggested that the defects were due to a significant failure of maintenance. If that were so the company could well lose its licence.
The last thing he wanted to do was close the company down but he had to be satisfied that it was operating safe vehicles.
He would be asking the Vehicle Inspectorate to carry out a spot check before September.