AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Haulier fined for uncalibrated tacho

13th December 1980
Page 19
Page 19, 13th December 1980 — Haulier fined for uncalibrated tacho
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 of the first contested cases over the tachograph regulations, an intricate legal defence failed to prevent Scottish haulier Sam Anderson (Newhouse) Ltd from being found guilty by Richmond, North Yorkshire Magistrates last week of using a lorry in which the tachograph was not calibrated.

The lorry, a V-registered Scania 111, had been stopped on the Al at Scotch Corner on May 29. Though the vehicle was new, the tachograph was uncalibrated and there was an overload on the second axle. Both the company and the driver were being prosecuted for the overload, but only the company answered the tachograph charge.

Representing the company, solicitor Roger Hird pleaded not guilty to the tachograph offence but told the court: "I concede that the regulation was broken, but I suggest that the procedure to enforce the regulation has never been introduced."

In a complex defence, Mr Hird went on to cite the original EEC tachograph enforcement legislation in Section 97 of the Transport Act 1968, but pointed out that the later Passenger and Goods Vehicle Recording Equip ment 1979 amending legislation, while laying down the phasingin period, revoked the enforcement procedure of the 1968 Act without replacing it with a new version.

"Therefore", concluded Mr Hird, "there must remain doubt about whether or not you can actually enforce the regulation — you do not have the necessary machinery — and in Britain if there is doubt the case is always resolved in favour of the defendant."

Prosecut ng for the Department of the Environment, Alan Vickers contended that this de fence was ignoring the European Communities Act 1972 which automatically gave the EEC member states the power of enforcement for all applicable EEC regulations.

After seeking further clarification of Mr Hird's defence, the Magistrates eventually rejected it and found the company guilty. It was fined £50 plus £30 costs. For the axle overload the company was fined £60, and the driver was also fined £40 with £20 costs.

Commenting on the tachograph decision after the hearing, director of the company Peter Anderson told CM: "We will appeal." He also gave support to the idea that new vehicles should be delivered with the 'tachograph already calibrated.


comments powered by Disqus