AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Overloading won and lost

18th August 1988, Page 17
18th August 1988
Page 17
Page 17, 18th August 1988 — Overloading won and lost
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?

• Smallpack Potatoes of Morley, West Yorkshire, last week won its appeal against a charge of grossly overloading a Ford Transit, but lost its appeal against a conviction for overloading the second axle of the van. This was despite the fact that the firm had failed to appear before Judge Arthur Prestt QC at Manchester Crown Court.

The prosecution said that in July 1987 the company had been convicted of exceeding the permitted gross weight of the van by 220kg (9.8%) and also of exceeding the permitted weight of the second axle by 240kg (20.5%). The company had been fined £150 and £300 respectively.

The prosecution accepted in court that the company should never have been convicted of the first offence. The van had been weighed on a dynamic axle weighing machine and, according to the regulations governing the use of such equipment, it was presumed to be accurate to plus or minus 150kg per axle. This meant the gross weight of a two-axled vehicle had to be exceeded by more than 300kg before an offence could be proved.

Prestt said that the gross weight conviction had been wrong in law and that both the conviction and sentence would be set aside.