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 
Fines and penalties are removed in brake case
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• 'Maidstone Crown Court has quashed fines imposed on Bethesda haulier Brian Williams and driver Alan Evans for using a vehicle with improperly adjusted brakes. Judge Simpson also directed that penalty points imposed on their driving licences should be removed.
Williams, of Sling, Tregarth and Evans, of Adcoyr Nant, Bethesda had appealed against fines of £300 and £200 imposed by the Chatham Magistrates.
Rhys Davies, prosecuting, said a vehicle driven by Evans had been stopped in a routine check on the M2 service area during a journey from the North Wales to Marseilles. It was found that a brake actuator on the front offside wheel of the semitrailer was out of adjustment; the actuator travelled 2.5in instead of the maximum 175in recommended for that type of brake.
The brake drum was cool and clearly had not been binding with the lining, said Davies.
Williams said the trailer had passed its annual test only a month before the incident and had then only travelled from Stoke to Manchester and back to Bethesda before setting off for Marseilles, lightly loaded with six tonnes. He was a qualified mechanic and employed a semi
skilled assistant to help maintain his fleet of five artics. Trailers were inspected every six weeks and the trailer concerned was not due for its next check after its annual test when it was stopped.
Evans said he had collected the trailer from Stoke and had taken it to Manchester for loading before returning to the depot. He had been unaware of any problem with the brakes. Though he carried out brake checks, he was not a trained mechanic and he was not expected to touch the slack adjusters.
The vehicle examiner in Kent had advised him how to readjust the brake, Evans added. He had noticed that the locking collar on the slack adjuster appeared to have stuck in; he had to work at it to get it to come out and lock. He understood that it might have allowed the adjuster to slacken off slowly when the brakes were applied repeatedly during normal driving.
Defending, John Backhouse said that the brake chamber concerned was one of 10; a defect in the braking system had arisen unexpectedly and both men could be said to have been morally guiltless and not to have been negligent. He argued that this was a similar case to that of Hart vs Be; in which the High Court had said that an absolute discharge was appropriate.