AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Tanker incorrectly described: case dismissed

14th June 1974, Page 22
14th June 1974
Page 22
Page 22, 14th June 1974 — Tanker incorrectly described: case dismissed
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

LEAKAGE of styrene from a tanker belonging to Wincanton Transport of Wincanton on to a car park led to the company and one of its drivers appearing before Penrith (Cumberland) magistrates court.

Wincanton Transport and the driver, Peter James Akers, Lower Morel Street, Barry, Glamorgan both pleaded not guilty last week to using a motor tanker with an insecure load and their solicitor, Mr Geoffrey Jones, successfully submitted that the summons was incorrect in describing the vehicle; the magistrates dismissed both cases on the technicality.

The magistrates heard that a pool of styrene had leaked from a valve on the side of the tanker and firemen covered it with sand to prevent the danger of the vapour igniting. The driver, after being located in an hotel, turned off the valves and maintained they had been tampered with, had no mechanical defect and were checked when he parked the vehicle.

Mr Jones said that the vehicle was articulated and the load was not on the motor tanker, as stated, but on the trailer. He also submitted that the car park was not a road, as defined in the Act covering the offence, and the summons referred to the vehicle being "used in a certain road called Southend Road". People might use the park as a short cut but that did not make it a road.

The Bench adjourned for consideration of the legal points and when the hearing was resumed Chief Insp G. W. Skelton, prosecuting, asked for amendment of the summons to refer to trailer, not motor tanker, describing it as a "small difference in substance".

However, Mr Jones objected, declaring: "It is completely wrong." The summons was served at the beginning of May when the police knew everything they knew now and it could be seen to be perfectly regular.

"My clients have come 300 miles to answer the summons and this is the one they have come to answer," he insisted. After another retirement by the Bench, the chairman (Mr J. N. Farrer) announced that they dismissed the submission of the defence on the question of car park or road, but agreed that the summons incorrectly described the vehicle.

"However, we don't think it proper to amend the summons at this stage," he added, "and therefore both charges are dismissed."

Fines for overloading

AT COLESHILL magistrates' court fines totalling ,C400 were imposed on Almic Transport Ltd, of Greaves Close, Brockhurst Estate, Walsall, following pleas of guilty to eight charges of using a vehicle of a gross weight in excess of the maximum permitted by the plating certificate.

Pleas of guilty were entered by the defence to seven charges against Amey Roadstone Corporation Ltd, of Ashby Road, Shepshed, Leics of aiding and abetting the Walsall firm in the commission of seven offences and it was fined a total of £350.


comments powered by Disqus