AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

I CASE TWO

16th April 2009, Page 25
16th April 2009
Page 25
Page 25, 16th April 2009 — I CASE TWO
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?

Fines and ban for driving prohibited truck

AN OWNER-DRIVER who used a vehicle in breach of a prohibition notice has received £299 in fines and costs and a sixmonth driving ban.

Edmund Parkinson of Helmshore, Rossendale, pleaded guilty to the offence before the Rochdale Magistrates.

Prosecuting for VOSA, John Heaton said Parkinson's 17-tonne vehicle had been stopped in a roadside check last May. and a prohibition issued for a seized load-sensing valve, poorly adjusted brakes and an excessive oil leak.

At that stage, the odometer read 16,590km. The vehicle was again seen by VOSA three weeks later while still subject to the prohibition. Although the original faults were not present, there was a fresh problem with a tyre. According to the odometer 7,329km had been travelled since the prohibition was imposed.

Parkinson had agreed that the vehicle was still under prohibition and said he was on his way to purchase some tyres. In regard to the discrepancy in distance, he had claimed that the vehicle had been used off the road by a friend and that his niece had been using it to learn to drive. He had added: "I don't know what a kilometre is." Parkinson said his mind had been on other things, such as who might have been using the vehicle without his knowledge. He claimed the original defects were not real defects. He said that a drain hole on the leg prop of the skip had been blocked and it had been water draining out of the legs not oil. The vehicle had not been used commercially after being prohibited. It had only been taken on the road for a test drive and repair and it was impossible that it had travelled 7,000Iun.

Magistrates disqualified Parkinson from driving for six months, fined him 185 and ordered him to pay 1199 prosecution costs and £15 victim surcharge.

Tags

Locations: Helmshore

comments powered by Disqus