AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Wheel appeal turned down

17th October 1996
Page 12
Page 12, 17th October 1996 — Wheel appeal turned down
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?

• A Bradford haulier plans to continue his legal battle after losing an appeal against a fine imposed for a faulty fifth-wheel locking clip. Maidstone Crown Court imposed an extra £294 court costs on Raymond Fry last week and refused to remove a £40 fine. But it did strip three penalty points from his licence after he presented expert evidence that his fifth wheel lock was safe. The court costs bring Fry's total costs in fighting the case to £3,000.

"I think I've had a very, very raw deal," he says. "We're looking at appealing again— it's not just the costs, it's the lost work."

Fry first appeared before Ashford magistrates in June after refusing to accept a £40 fixed penalty and three points given by a police officer who said his trailer was dangerous because it lacked a fifth wheel

The court refused to accept that the manufacturer's plunger design was an acceptable safety device and upheld the penalties, prompting his appeal this week.

Tags

Organisations: Maidstone Crown Court

comments powered by Disqus