Recovery firm gets a warning
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A recovery firm, which has an Operator's Licence it does not really need has received a warning about its maintenance standards.
Oldham-based Broadbent Road Auto Spares holds a licence for two vehicles. At a Leeds disciplinary inquiry North Western Deputy Traffic Commissioner Mark Hinchliffe heard that two immediate and two delayed prohibitions had been imeosed on its vehicles since 1996.
Vehicle examiner David Homby said that though the stated period between inspections was six weeks, there were gaps of up to 14 weeks. A forward planner and a driver defect reporting system had only just been introduced.
For the firm, Andrew Woolfall said that the maintenance contractor had been changed and the one vehicle currently operated was being inspected every six weeks. In addition a new driver defect reporting system had been introduced.
Broadbent partner Roy Fogerty said he was a helicopter pilot so he was very aware of the need to be safety conscious. The firm only did recovery work so it did not need an 0-licence, he added, but he wanted to be regulated.
The Deputy TC commented that It was an unusual case as the firm was "a voluntary member of the club". But as a member it had to comply with the rules.
Undertaking that all the vehicles that would be operated under the licence would be recovery vehicles, Fogerty
said: "I don't want to be a loose cannon. I want to be regulated. I want to be in the system."
Things had gone awry when they acquired annther business and he had devoted his time to that. His partner had fried to do too much. Fogerty also gave a number of undertakings about the firm's maintenance system.
The Deputy TC pointed out that if he took disciplinary action against the licence, such as suspending it, the firm's compliance would be voluntary. If they did not like his decision they could continue using the vehicles as they did not require an 0-licence.
Fogerty indicated that he would comply with any direction made by the Deputy TC.
In view of the undertakings given the Deputy IC issued the firm with a warning but took no other action.