AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Court rejects driver d on a frolic' excuse ARG UMENTS THAT

19th February 2009
Page 26
Page 26, 19th February 2009 — Court rejects driver d on a frolic' excuse ARG UMENTS THAT
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?

Ace Waste Haulage was not responsible for an overloading offence because the driver "was on a frolic of his own" have been rejected by the Uxbridge Magistrates.

The north London-based company denied using a vehicle when its permitted gross weight was being exceeded, Jacqueline Devonish, prosecuting for VOSA, revealed that a skip lorry belonging to the company and driven by Edward BeHot was stopped in a check in September 2008. When weighed, it was found that the permitted gross weight had been exceeded by 33%.

Director Paul Evers argued that the company could not be convicted of "using" the vehicle when it had no control over the actions of the driver. Benot was under instructions to collect a skip full of light rubbish. He was persuaded to take "muck" by the customer and had been paid £20 as a cash bribe. That load caused the vehicle to be overweight.

Bellot had taken a load he was not entitled to and that he knew that he should not take.

There was nothing he could do to prevent the driver from taking a bribe.

Evers did not dispute the over weight offence, his ownership of the vehicle or the employment of the driver.

However, Devonish argued that so long as the driver was paid by Ace Waste Haulage, he was engaged on company business, and, therefore, it would be liable for his actions The magistrates convicted the firm, fining it .E250 and ordering it to pay £450 in prosecution costs.

Evers indicated that he would appeal against the decision.