AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Gibbs vehicle 'lethal'

8th June 1989, Page 20
8th June 1989
Page 20
Page 20, 8th June 1989 — Gibbs vehicle 'lethal'
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?

Ii • The three

vehicle licence held by C R Gibbs & Sons (Sheffield) has been revoked, and the company disqualified from holding a licence for 12 months, after its vehicle was said to have been in a "lethal" condition.

The company appeared at disciplinary proceedings before North Eastern Deputy Licensing Authority Brian Homer last week, when its renewal application was also being considered. Vehicle examiner Ronald Uttley said a company vehicle showed little sign of care and attention. He had issued an immediate prohibition for two dangerous defects.

There were no inspection records and no preventative maintenance system was in force. Repairs were done as and when required by a firm which had rented the company's workshop.

Questioned by Homer, Uttley said that he would describe the condition of the vehicle as "lethal".

Timothy Staveley, the company's estimates surveyor, said he had been responsible for transport. He accepted that the company had been ignorant of its obligations. Gibbs had employed its own mechanic and everything had been left to him. When he retired two years ago his replacement proved unsatisfactory and was transferred to labouring duties. The workshop was let out and arrangements were made for the firm occupying it to maintain the vehicles.

Homer said invoices produced were for the repair of minor defects, and did not relate to planned maintenance.

Staveley said a tachograph conviction had not been declared in the application form as he had misunderstood the question. Following the vehicle examiner's visit, the two vehicles in possession were sold for £500. He agreed the company had had a vehicle that was lethal.

Managing director John Gibbs said the company would only require a licence for one vehicle, as it proposed to hire vehicles in on a day-to-day basis. That was why there was no documentary evidence of a formal maintenance system.

Homer said he accepted that the company had acted out of ignorance, but the consequences could have been catastrophic if the vehicle had gone on the road. He had no alternative but to revoke the licence and disqualify the company from holding a licence for 12 months.


comments powered by Disqus