AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Reeks is fined

10th May 1986, Page 15
10th May 1986
Page 15
Page 15, 10th May 1986 — Reeks is fined
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?

;owbridge, South Glamornagistrates have ordered J Meeks and 25 of its rs to pay £2,045 in fines :osts after convicting of a series of overloadffences. The magistrates ted arguments that, bee vehicles must use a Lc route and weigh at the ery point, they were ; the nearest available hbridge.

le company and the drivlenied a total of 78 of

of exceeding the train ht of 38-tonne GVW articd vehicles by between rid 7.5% when carrying or the National Coal d from Morlais to the !I" station at Aberthaw. prosecution offered no mce in respect of 10 of .harges against the corn

osecuting for the South s Traffic Area, Michael rson said the offences to light when traffic liners obtained weight ts from the power staMeeks was one of seviauliers being .cuted.

tree weighbridges could been used to check the hts of the vehicles before reached Aberthaw.

in Backhouse, defending, environmental complaints t large vehicles using r roads led to a specific being a term of the -act. The drivers were inted on threat of dismissal they must stick to the laid route.

ere were no weighing .ies at the loading point at ais and the weight tickets to the drivers were ped with the instruction they must weigh at Aber ! argued that the de!Ms were entitled to the fit of the defence that were proceeding to the st available weighbridge, had to be suitable.

at meant suitable on enviental grounds as well as cal and in this case there strong environmental tions to the use of any thing other than the M4 and other main roads.

The drivers were paid by the job and not by the tonne so they had no incentive to overload. As soon as the company realised that some vehicles were overloaded, it ordered a reduction in the number of bucketfalls put on the vehicles. The problem was the water content which varies tremendously from day to day.

The magistrates found the cases proved, fining the company £40 per offence and the drivers £15 per offence. They ordered the company to pay prosecution costs of

Tags


comments powered by Disqus