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
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192 
Haulier warned about test-failure ignorance
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
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.