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 
350 C\ Licences Suspended
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AT an inquiry last Friday under Section 178 of the Road Traffic Act, 350 C-licensed ice-cream vans out of a total national fleet of 1,326 vehicles belonging to Walls Whippy Ltd. were ordered off the road for a week beginning on October 18 by the West Midland Licensing Authority, Mr. J. Else. It was stated that in a I2-month period—despite £850,000 being spent on the fleet-261 prohibition notices were served on the company, 81 of them immediate.
The LA said that during the second half of last year, 45 GV9s (15 immediate) were served on the firm's vehicles in the Western traffic area. This resulted in a national check on as many of the vehicles as possible between February and June this year.
During this period 207 prohibitions were issued (62 of them immediate). Of these, 67 (22 immediate) were issued in the last fortnight of June.
Mr. P. Dow, for Walls Whippy, said that a new company was formed in January last year to combine the icecream distribution of Walls and Mr. Whippy. It was faced with considerable reorganization and the state of the combined fleet was not realized for some time.
There were no maintenance facilities at any of the company's 46 depots, All the maintenance was done by garages on a contract basis and the results were not satisfactory. Skilled fitters were sought, but such were the difficulties in arranging adequate maintenance in the west that the two depots at Bristol and Penarth, which had first attracted the Ministry's attention, were closed for that reason alone.
Mr. Dow said that the number of depots was being reduced to 23 and the vehicle fleet of some 1,700 to just over 1,000. A system of daily, fortnightly and
monthly checks had been introduced. Seven vehicle inspectors had been appointed, with authority to tour depots examining vehicles at random without previous notice to depot managers. They would be operating on similar lines to the Ministry's own examiners.
Giving his decision, Mr. Else said he was concerned that depot managers were in a position to put unsafe Vehicles on the road because of commercial considerations and he urged the firm to give serious thought to this situation. The firm had taken good steps to put its house in order, but this seemed to be a classic case of locking the stable door after the horse had bolted.
Mr. Else said he found himself in some difficulty in imposing an effective penalty because 60 per cent of the fleet was not in use in the winter months. He asked Mr. Dow whether he could see anything in the Act which prevented him from delaying suspension of vehicles until next year. Mr. Dow replied that he felt it would be unsound in general law and that his clients would be likely to appeal against such a decision.