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 
Firm and drivers hit for hours breaches
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DRIVERS' HOURS and tachograph offences have cost an Essex company and three of its drivers £4,392 in fines and costs.
Ockendon-based John F Hunt (Plant Hire) pleaded guilty to permitting drivers to fail to use tachograph charts and to take insufficient daily and weekly rest. Harlow magistrates fined the company £2.000 with £1,592 costs.
The three drivers also admitted the offences. Darren Rigs was fined £350, Kevin Herbert was fined £350 and Steven Kendrick. who was also the company's transport manager, was lined £100.
Anthony Ostrin, prosecuting for the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, told the court that the company used low-loaders to haul heavy plant on hire. In February 2003 a traffic examiner visited the premises and requested charts over a six-month period. These charts revealed a number of serious offences that had an impact on road safety. By failing to comply with the rules drivers became tired and accidents happened.
Tim Ridyard, representing both the company and its drivers.said the nature of the company's operation meant it was difficult to comply with the hours regulations.The operation involved short periods of driving but with the drivers remaining with their vehicles for most of the day. It was not a case of a company 'making a quick buck'. None of the defendants had gained financially or taken any commercial advantage — the company was not 'a cowboy outfit'.