AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Discharge for removals overload

10th April 1997, Page 20
10th April 1997
Page 20
Page 20, 10th April 1997 — Discharge for removals overload
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?

• An owner-driver who was subcontracted to removal contractors Cooks of Cranieigh was given a conditional discharge for 12 months after pleading guilty to overloading offences.

Appearing before Farnham magistrates, Christopher Burgess, of Horsham, admitted a 10% rear axle overload and a 9,3% gross overload of his 7.5tormer. Burgess said he had been working in removals for more than 20 years, The vehicle had only been two-thirds full and had looked all right from a visual inspection.

Andrew Woolfall, defending, pointed out that the front axle had been 600kg under its permitted weight. He referred the magistrates to the decision of the High Court in the case of Travel Gas (Midlands), which said that if there was a plea of guilty to an overall overweight charge and there was nothing added by the other information for separate axle weights, it might be fair and wise simply to accept the plea on the gross weight.

This was because it could be said to be oppressive to proceed further with the possibility of fines over £4,000, said Woolfall, if there were more than one individual axle overweight, when £2,000 was the maximum for the gross overweight of the vehicle.

The magistrates also ordered Burgess to pay £45 costs.

Tags

Organisations: High Court

comments powered by Disqus