A maintenance investigation was carried out after Mr Naveed’s minibus failed its MoT with 14 serious defects
The authorisation on the restricted Licence held by Oldham-based Mohammed Naveed was cut from two vehicles to one by Deputy Traffic Commissioner (DTC) Hugh Olson after his one minibus received an ‘S’ marked immediate prohibition for 14 serious defects at annual test.
The DTC said that a Vehicle Examiner (VE) carried out a maintenance investigation on 18 April following a MoT failure on 20 February for a long list of defects of which 14 were serious defects, including steering, brake, suspension and tyre defects.
The VE noted that the vehicle was inspected on 21 January when no defects were recorded. An email had been received saying that documents had been lost when a vehicle was broken into after the Public Inquiry (PI) had been adjourned in September which would have dealt with some of the issues raised by the VE.
In reply to the DTC, Mr Naveed said that he only operated the one vehicle. He acquired a Hummer limousine at a cost of £36,000 after receiving a lot of enquiries for a limousine. It was only used occasionally. A lot of the work was local for Asian weddings. One of the brake pipe defects occurred at the Test Station.
For Mr Naveed, Bill Bowling, Legislation Officer of the Limousine and Chauffeurs Association, said that following the January inspection the vehicle had a gearbox problem. A new gearbox was fitted and the vehicle taken straight in for its MoT without being inspected.
Some of the defects could be attributed to the gearbox problem. When the vehicle was resubmitted it passed without any repairs being done to the steering. It was accepted that the condition of the parking brake, the tyres, brake pipe corrosion, and the ball joint covering problem should have been picked up by the maintenance provider in January.
Asked what he had done in the last seven months to improve matters, Mr Naveed said that he was still using the same maintenance provider but he now sat there whilst the vehicle was being inspected as his reputation was at stake.
After Mr Bowling said that Mr Naveed would undertake to have an independent systems audit, the DTC said that the problem was that the systems currently looked fine on paper. The issue was whether the maintenance provider was doing a good job or not. It was difficult to know what the current state of play was because of the missing documents.
Undertakings were given to have an independent audit of the maintenance and drivers’ hours systems, for Mr Naveed to go on a drivers’ CPC course although not a PSV driver, for the driver to undertake a refresher course on drivers’ hours, for six months preventative maintenance inspection records be produced by the end of the month, and for a second maintenance provider to undertake a second inspection within a week of the principle maintenance provider for six months.
Cutting the licence, the DTC said that it would give Mr Naveed the opportunity to show that he could operate the vehicle properly over a six months period.