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
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206 
Responsibility for maintenance can never be avoided
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS have led to Airdriebased N Watson's licence being cut from eight vehicles to two for two weeks, and to three vehicles thereafter.
When the company appeared before Scottish Traffic Commissioner Joan Aitken at an Edinburgh disciplinary inquiry, vehicle examiner David Marshall reported that the company's vehicles had attracted four immediate and nine delayed prohibitions, with seven variation notices. Two of the delayed prohibitions were S-marked; nine of the prohibitions were for braking defects.
On 25 September 2003 one of Watson's vehicles was issued with a delayed prohibition, due to come into effect five days later, but which was not cleared. On 16 October that year the same vehicle was given an S-marked delayed prohibition for the same defect, a worn suspension shackle pin and an oil leak.
MD Neil Watson said the company relied on outside contractors for maintenance. It had decided to replace this truck but there had been a delay in the paperwork. On 16 October the company had not been able to hire a vehicle and was desperate to obtain a skip that was just down the road from its yard so the prohibited vehicle was used.
The firm now uses the FTA to monitor and report back on its maintenance contractors.
Appearing for the company, Michael Whiteford said it wanted to curtail its licence to the three vehicles in possession.The most recent vehicle to be given a prohibition order had been to the maintenance contractor and was considered serviceable, but the vehicle examiner had imposed a prohibition.
Cutting the licence, the TC said the prohibitions, and the S-markings in particular, revealed flaws in the company's maintenance standards and in the management of its maintenance procedures. Fortunately for Watson's, she believed the prohibited vehicle had not been used to any great extent. However, she reminded the company that prohibitions were imposed to ensure road safety, and that business convenience must never take precedence.