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 
DLA revokes D&M 0-licence
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The threevehicle licence held by Huddersfieldbased D&M Builders Merchants has been revoked by North Eastern Deputy Licensing Authority Brian Horner.
Vehicle examiner Peter McKay told a Leeds public inquiry that he had imposed an immediate prohibition on a vehicle in December for four items. The same vehicle had been given a delayed prohibition in a roadside check in September.
A second vehicle was given an immediate prohibition for serious brake defects during an annual test; a third vehicle was also prohibited during its annual test in March 1989, after serious brake defects were found and propshaft bolts were so loose that detachment was imminent. Maintenance tended to be remedial rather than preventative, said McKay. There were two inspection sheets for one vehicle, dated June and September. The most recent inspection sheet for another was dated July 1989, and the one previous to that was dated April 1987.
Managing director Michael Doherty siad he had been under great pressure 12 months before, having bought his partner out of the business and being £100,000 in debt. The financial situation had been put right and the company now had a decent fleet. He had entered into a contract with a commercial garage for the maintenance of the vehicles.
Asked why it had taken until early this year to enter into a contract, despite undertakings given in 1987, Doherty said that the company had suffered a lot of problems with maintenance contractors. It had sued one garage over a faulty injector pump but the case was thrown out and it had cost the company 23,000.
Horner said the company had appeared at a previous public inquiry in January 1987, following an unsatisfactory fleet inspection, when its application for extra vehicles was refused. Doherty had given undertakings at that time to implement a maintenance contract with isolation at eight-week intervals and a driver defect reporting system. That had not been done until Janaury 1990, and the inspection records were virtually non-existent. It was a disgraceful state of affairs, which was quite unacceptable, said Homer.