Vehicle maintenance problems have resulted in the international licence held by Atlantic Travel (GB) being cut from 30 to 27 vehicles by Traffic Commissioner (TC) Simon Evans.
The Bolton-based operator had been called before the TC at a Golborne Public Inquiry (PI) after a strong warning had been issued along with a requirement for a systems audit.
The initial report by Transport Consultant Grahame Robinson did not show sufficient progress had been made. The Transport Manager (TM), Rehana Dean was also called before the PI in relation to her professional competence and repute [routeone/Court Report/11 April].
In a written decision, the TC said that the company’s prohibition rate for vehicles stood at 45% over the last two years. Arrangements, by their nature unusual in his experience, existed for the recording of defects by the company before preventive maintenance inspections, whereby a list of issues was prepared through local inspection of the vehicle.
The list would also include matters which it was accepted that drivers ought to have recorded during their walk-round checks. Under the systems in use, drivers were only required to report matters that would render vehicles unserviceable.
Despite instructions given to the maintenance contractor, roller brake testing had not been put in place and operated consistently, but neither the Director Yasser Dean nor its TM Ms Dean had come to appreciate the position, even when it was said that a continuing dialogue with the contractor was ongoing.
Attempts to change the maintenance contractor had not proved feasible since obvious alternatives were not prepared to take on the Atlantic fleet. Plans to operate in-house maintenance remained under consideration if suitable premises could be located.
The existing contractor had in the meantime taken on a PCV specialist fitter. New preventive maintenance forms suitable for PCVs had now been prepared and printed and would be adopted but no acceptable explanation was provided for the delay in taking this matter forward.
The TC concluded, however, that enough positive steps had been taken for him to be satisfied that the repute both of the company and its TM remained intact. Financial standing was met, and professional competence was retained.
However, he was minded to reflect the firm’s failure to act promptly and appropriately upon the warning, given both to it and its TM, after the initial maintenance inspection, and upon the outcome of the first audit report.
By taking the steps that he was taking, he was preventing expansion of operations at this time, and until he was satisfied that it could be done against a background of compliance.
He required a further audit in October so that he might be assured that the company was taking its responsibilities seriously for managing its relationship with its maintenance contractor, and in ensuring vehicles were deployed that were fit and serviceable.
Finally, the TC recorded a formal warning in the case of both the company and its TM.
