AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Haulier warned about test-failure ignorance

16th October 2003
Page 34
Page 34, 16th October 2003 — Haulier warned about test-failure ignorance
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?

AN OPERATOR ended up before a Public Inquiry because his maintenance contractor did not tell him his truck had failed its annual test. However, Welsh Deputy Traffic Commissioner Alan Bourlet let the operator off with a formal warning after saying it was "reprehensible" that some maintenance contractors did not tell hauliers of first-time test failures.

Penrhyndeudraeth-based Owen and Nerys Griffiths had been called before the DTC at a Caernarfon disciplinary inquiry where vehicle examiner David Rowlands said that as a result of its failure at annual test he had inspected the company's one truck and found no faults.

The inspected records showed that the stated inspection period was being adhered to. There was no recorded prohibition history and the driver defect reporting system was satisfactory Maintenance was undertaken by an outside contractor on whom the firm was totally dependent, said Rowlands. Owen Griffiths had told him that they had spent over £1,000 on parts and labour on MoT preparation. For the firm, Gareth Parry said it had been unaware of the initial test failure until a recent invoice from its maintenance contractor referred to a second test. As a result the maintenance contractor had now been changed.

Issuing a formal warning. the DTC said that though the firm was responsible for presenting its vehicle at annual test in a fit condition, he had some sympathy in view of the amount of money that had been spent on test preparation. The contractor's omission was reprehensible because it counted against the licence even though the operator was powerless as he did not know about the first failure.