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
187
188
189
190 
Magistrates dismiss on overloading
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HALIFAX MAGISTRATES have dismissed an overloading charge against a driver after accepting arguments that weighing a heavy haulage vehicle carrying an abnormal and divisible load statically on a dynamic axle weighbridge was unlawful.
Driver Scot Mitchell and Arthur Ruttle, a director of Chorley-based Ruttle Plant Hire, pleaded not guilty to using the outfit which was overloaded and over-width.
PC Travis of West Yorkshire Police said that last September the outfit, which was carrying heavy plant, was check weighed at the AinleyTop dynamic weighbridge. It was weighed in the static mode because it was too big to be weighed dynamically.
The GCW was 102.31 tonnes compared with a maximum of 85 tonnes on the movement order; the rig was more than 12ft wide when the notification had been for just over lift.
In reply to Jonathan Lawton, defending, Travis agreed it was clear that the vehicle was being used by the limited company. He also agreed that he had not read the dynamic axle weighing regulations.
Lawton argued that the vehicle was clearly being operated by the company and not Ruttle and that such a weighbridge should not be used statically.The magistrates said the wrong defendant had been prosecuted.
Dismissing the overloadingcharge against Mitchell, the magistrates doubted the weights obtained were accurate.They fined Mitchell £250 for the over-width offence but made no order for costs.