AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Low-loader appeal

14th June 1968, Page 35
14th June 1968
Page 35
Page 35, 14th June 1968 — Low-loader appeal
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?

• The Transport Tribunal on Wednesday reserved its decision on an appeal by F. C. Targett and Sons Ltd., Southampton, against the South Eastern LA's refusal to substitute a heavier articulated semilow-loader for one already on its 8 licence. For the appellant, Mr. R. M. Yorke said that on numerous occasions loads carried for Pirelli Ltd., its main customer, had exceeded the maker's recommended payload, though illegality could not be proved.

The LA had thought it necessary for a Pirelli witness to give evidence, but Mr. Yorke contended that if this were the case it would mean that all licences were for a precise type of vehicle: operators would have to produce evidence and witnesses for the slightest variation.

For the respondent. Mr. M. U. Jackson-Lipkin suggested that the appellant had been carrying heavier loads than he should, and was, in effect, attempting to put his house in order.