AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Hefty bill for hours dodges

13th January 2000
Page 26
Page 26, 13th January 2000 — Hefty bill for hours dodges
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?

Aiding and abetting drivers to falsify tachograph records has cost Huddersfield haulier Robert Hirst 111,875 in fines and costs.

Hirst had denied 14 offences of aiding and abetting three of his drivers to falsify charts but was convicted by the town's magistrates after a three-day trial. He was fined £7,700 with £4,175 costs.

Prosecuting for the Vehicle Inspectorate, Richard Wadkin said the offences arose after Hirst organised work which could not be completed within the drivers' hours limits, He alleged that Hirst had known what was going on. The drivers had falsified charts by using false names or removing tachograph fuses.

Evidence was given by the drivers that they phoned in on a Thursday and told Hirst what hours they had done; they were paid for those hours. They did not hand in time sheets unless they were asked to.

Driver Garrie Hutchinson said that when he had said to Hirst that it meant he would have to run illegally he had been told the job had to be done. Hutchinson agreed that he had initially lied to the traffic examiner by claiming that he had submitted blank charts; he subsequently admitted putting false names on the charts. Like the other drivers, he did not know if Hirst had known tie was falsifying charts.

Denying that he had any knowledge of the offences, Hirst said that if the drivers had organised their time differently the work could have been done within the hours limits. Accepting that he might have been negligent in collecting charts, Hirst said he did scan the charts from time to time and brought infringements to the attention of his drivers. He agreed that he did not compare them with the time sheets or the wages paid.

For I lirst, Gary Hodgson said that the work was obtained the day before and then allocated to the drivers. Hirst depended on the drivers to report what they had managed to achieve during the day—he was entitled to trust his employees to give him accurate information.

Not all of Hirst's 18 drivers had been falsifying and those who did had not falsified charts every day, Hodgson added. There was no direct evidence that Hirst had instructed the drivers to falsify charts; it could be said that he was too trusting.

Hutchinson was fined 1750, with 150.50 costs for five offences of falsification; Henry Cherry was fined £1,400 with 1105.50 costs for seven offences of falsification; and Anthony Naughton was fined £200 for two offences of falsification, with no order for costs.