AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

'Hole and corner' weighbridge appeal is successful

22nd October 1971
Page 18
Page 18, 22nd October 1971 — 'Hole and corner' weighbridge appeal is successful
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?

• Overloading summonses against Northern Land Contractors Ltd, Bishop Middleham, Co Durham, were dismissed by Berwick magistrates last week after a defence submission that the prosecution had failed to provide evidence showing that the Tweedmouth weighbridge was accurate and challenging the qualifications of traffic examiners for weighing.

Northumberland county council weights and measures department had refused to approve the weighbridge at the DoE testing station, the court was told at the hearing which was continued from September 9.

Mr T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, defending Northern Land Contractors Ltd, Bishop Middleham, Co Durham, a member of the London and Northern Securities Group, charged with overloading a four-axle articulated vehicle by 1 ton 19cwt lqr 7Ib in excess of the permitted 28 tons gross, agreed to accept evidence by. letter from the borough surveyor that the land adjacent to the weighbridge was perfectly level. Mr A. L. Vickers, prosecuting for the Northern LA, then called Mr R. M. Hay, deputy chief weights and measures inspector, Northumberland county council, who gave evidence of tests carried out at the weighbridge on October 1.

Mr Hay said that at 10 tons capacity the weighbridge was 71b slow, at 10-20 tons 14Ib slow, and at 30 tons 211b slow.

Cross-examined by Mr Campbell Wardlaw, he agreed that these were static tests carried out by piling weights on the weighbridge platform. The DoE had asked the department to approve the weighbridge but it has refused to do so as it was not up to standard, the weighmen being unable to see the vehicle they were weighing.

Mr Hay also agreed that his department used much larger weighbridges for weighing long vehicles because the results were more accurate. There was one in Berwick with a certificated weighbridge attendant. He had given evidence in another case that weighing axle by axle was not a completely satisfactory method — at the best only a

fair estimate could be obtained. Lom weighbridges were very expensive compare( with the single-plate type used by the Doi and the reasons the county council preferre( them were obvious.

Mr Campbell Wardlaw submitted that i was shocking that the DoE should trea road hauliers in this "hole and corner' fashion. The general public was protecte( by the Weights and Measures Act, 1963 which required regular inspection o approved weighbridges by local authoritie: and certificated weighbridge attendants. Thi hauliers concerned here were denied thi: and had no protection at all there had beet no regular inspection and the weighing wa: done by uncertificated traffic examiners.

The offences occurred in July but the firs local authority test was in October am there was no evidence to show whether ail weighbridge was accurate on the earlie date. The single plate weighbridges used the DoE were never intended for thi purposes for which they were now beim used.

The magistrates dismissed the summon! against Northern Land Contractors am also one against Russell of Bathgate Ltd foi whom Mr Campbell Wardlaw alst appeared. The company pleaded not guilt} and the prosecution offered no evidence.


comments powered by Disqus