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 
LA told of
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
)perator's self-imposed penalty
No penalty was imposed by Maj-Gen L. F. J. Elmslie, South Eastern LA, at astbourne this week, when an operator ad given evidence of steps taken to prevent ecurrence of four GV9s on two vehicles over period of six months.
The company, A. W. Letheren (East :ent) Ltd, of Deal, was described by the lanaging director Mr A. W. Letheren as uilders employing 36 men. Two vehicles in peration came within the scope of the )-licence regulation; a rigid vehicle for 7ansporting equipment and a Bedford pper.
Mr J. S. Eveleigh, DoE vehicle examiner, aid that during his visits in June 1970 and anuary this year four GV9s were imposed. le had not considered the records of laintenance were sufficiently comprehenive and although regular maintenance was upposed to have been done mainly by a arage, Martin Walter Ltd of Dover, there was no written agreement to this effect. It appeared, that one vehicle was being inspected monthly although the other had not been inspected for five months.
In evidence Mr Letheren complained about the standard of service provided by the garage and produced a copy of the letter sent to the managing director of the garage in October 1969 in which he pointed out that one vehicle had been in the garage for six weeks being prepared for MoT plating and testing and when submitted had failed; £1500 had been spent on the two vehicles in the past two years, he added.
In January this year as a result of the latest GV9, said Mr Letheren, he had told the garage he was entirely reliant upon its servicing ability; and an agreed maintenance check list was compiled to comply with DoE recommendations, inspections to be carried out every three weeks. Since a check of the tipper in March the vehicle had been taken off the road and was now to be sold. A .new replacement would be delivered in six weeks.
The LA said that in normal circumstances a severe penalty would have been imposed. In this case, however, a self-imposed penalty had been created by the operator taking one vehicle off the road. He accepted the assurances of Mr Letheren that a written agreement with the garage would be made and ordered that the contract be produced when applying for the substitution of the new vehicle.