AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Single penalty

23th August 1990, Page 18
23th August 1990
Page 18
Page 18, 23th August 1990 — Single penalty
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?

in One fault should mean one penalty in cases of multiple overloading offences, said Judge Michael Walker at Sheffield Crown Court. He allowed appeals by J W Fidler & Sons, of Manchester and its driver Timothy Pugh, against the size of fines imposed by Barnsley Magistrates for gross and secondaxle overloads.

The company had been fined £500 on each offence and Pugh £200 on each.

The company's fine for the gross overload was reduced to £480, and it was given an absolute discharge for the second-axle overload. Pugh's fine for the second-axle overload was reduced to £50 and he was given an absolute discharge in respect of the gross overload. The defence costs were ordered to be paid out of public funds.

Prosecuting, Neil Campbell said that a two-axled box van with a permitted gross weight of 7,490kg had been checked while carrying foodstuffs between Manchester and Sheffield. It was found to have a gross weight of 8,950kg, an excess of 19.4%. The second axle had a permitted weight of 5,200kg but had weighed 6,390kg, an overload of 22.8%.

For Fidler and Pugh, John Backhouse said the company was a wholesale catering supplier and not in competition with hauliers. It had made approximately 1,580 movements a year in the past 10 years without any previous convictions. The offences had occurred when the manager responsible for allocating the loads was off work and the load was wrongly allocated by warehouse staff. The driver had taken no part in the loading, and was not in any way to blame.