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 
LA blames company directors' incompetence
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The incompetence of the two directors of a Shoreham transport company was blamed for the trouble in which it found itself by Mr G. C. Mercer, South Eastern deputy LA, at a public inquiry in Brighton on Friday. For prohibition notices between 1970 and 1973 and three overloading offences, he reduced the licence of James Glover Transport Ltd, Shoreham by Ser from 12 vehicles and six trailers to six vehicles and six trailers and further deleted one vehicle for three months from July 2. In addition, said Mr Mercer, there would be a further fleet inspection within three months.
For the company, Mr James Glover, one of the directors, said that the company bought six new vehicles from two local garages in 1970 and the garages were asked to maintain them. The garages had not kept the vehicles in the condition which the firm had the right to expect and there was evidence that work which had been charged for had not been carried out efficiently.
In support of this statement, Mr Glover produced records which showed that the company had spent an average of £.100 a month over the past three years in maintaining its vehicles, he also produced records of the credit notes issued by the garages for claims for work badly carried out.
In addition, said Mr Glover, the transport manager employed till February this year was not a competent person and he had left the company's employ, but a fully qualified transport manager had been employed in his place.
The new transport manager had directed the vehicles to another garage which appeared to be prepared to ensure that the vehicles were in good condition. The owner of the new garage produced specimen vehicle inspection sheets for Mr Mercer's approval.
After inspecting the sheets, Mr Mercer pointed out that the sheets contained only 39 items for regular inspection against the Road Haulage Association's inspection sheets which contained more than 60 items.
The sheets produced amounted only to the equivalent of a preventive maintenance inspection every 12 months, said the deputy LA, and should be reviewed.
Earlier, vehicle inspector Mr R. Surtees had told the deputy LA that at a fleet inspection carried out on January 15, he had seen three vehicles and one trailer and had imposed two prohibitions. He saw three more vehicles and two trailers on January 17 and on this occasion imposed one immediate and two delayed prohibitions. On January 29, he had inspected the records which he had found incomplete and the then transport manager had told him that he was having difficulty in getting vehicle maintenance records from both the garages concerned. Drivers' defect reports were satisfactory, however.
In giving his decision, Mr Mercer said that the company had been given one GV9 in 1970, three in 1972 of which one was immediate, and four delayed and one immediate GV9 in 1973. In addition it had been convicted of two overloading offences in 1971 and one this year.
It was no use companies blaming employees or garages for the condition of their vehicles, he said, it was the operator who was responsible. In thiscase, the position in which the company found itself was attributable to the incompetence of Mr lames Glover and his father and he had no alternative but to impose the penalty outlined.