Too long vehicle appeal
Page 14
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A CHARGE of operating an articulated vehicle whose length was in excess of 15 metres contrary to the Construction and Use Regulations was dismissed at Stockton-onTees, but is to be appealed by the DOE.
Prosecuting Henry Peacock Norton on behalf of the Yorkshire Licensing Authority before Skipton Magistrates on April 7, Mr Jeremy Schumann said that when one of the company's vehicles was measured by a senior vehicle examiner after it had been stopped in a roadside check its overall length was found to be 15 metres 40 cm-16in over the authorised length.
The company pleaded not guilty and Mr Peter Wishlade, defending, said that in 1968 the Northern LA authorised the operation of five articulated vehicles whose length exceeded 15m on a carrier's licence subject to them being used for the carriage of containers for Bell Line Ltd. The vehicle concerned in the offence was carrying two of that company's containers.
Mr Arthur Hamilton, the company's managing director, said that when he started in haulage in 1967 it soon became apparent that to carry two 20ft containers on a 39ft trailer was unsafe. He had applied to the Licensing Authority for authority to use 40ft trailers with twist locks to make certain the containers did not come off, and this application was granted.
Mr Schumann argued that an offence had been commit ted, be it a technical one. It was a question of the difference between the powers of Parliament and those of an LA with the former taking precedence. The decision of an LA could not override the Construction and Use Regulations and the power of the Secretary of State.
The magistrates held that the prosecution had failed to prove their case and dismissed the charge.
The company pleaded guilty to using a vehicle not specified on its 0 licence in. 1975. It was said in mitigation that at the time of purchase, through an oversight, the LA was not ,notified of the substitution of the vehicle concerned. The magistrates fined the company £25.