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
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212 
Court challenge for overloading fines
Page 10
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FINES TOTALLING more than £3,000 were imposed on Consolidation Land Services and 17 of its drivers at Scunthorpe magistrates for overloading offences at British Steel Corporation's Appleby Frodsham works.
But because the summonses related to train weight, Consolidation is to lodge an appeal on the grounds that all the evidence offered related to gross weights.
Prosecuting for Humberside County Council Trading Standards Department, H. M. Osborne said the checks took place in November 1977. Of the 120 loads, 31 were overweight, the excess ranging from a maximum of 6140kg down to 1010kg. The loads consisted of palletised ore carried to the BSC works from Land Services Ltd and East Coast River Services Ltd.
Cross-examined, Mr Os borne agreed that the company had provided schedules of the vehicles and drivers used, although he had no statutory authority to demand such information.
Asked about discrepancies between the weight recorded by the BSC weighbridge and those at the loading point, Mr Osborne said that the BSC weighbridge was found to have a faulty scale — but in any event discrepancies could arise if bridges were not corrently zeroed before weighing.
Submitting that the prosecution had failed to make out a case, Jonathan Lawton, defending, pointed out that each summons alleged exceeding the train weight whereas the weights obtained had been gross weights. The regulations made it clear that two different methods of obtaining such weights was contemplated. The prosecution evidence did not relate to train weight, he said.
The magistrates found the charges proved and in mitigation, Mr Lawton submitted the company had issued strict instructions both to its drivers and the weighbridge operators that there must be no overloading.
Although this information was given to Mr Osborne, he had not checked it, nor had the British Steel Corporation been prosecuted. A great deal of material had been moved in a very short time, the greater part within the legal limit.
The company was fined £75 on each of 31 charges, with £100 costs, and the drivers a total of £750.
Consolidation Land Services are likely to appeal to Grimsby Town Court against all the convictions.