AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Shod break costs arson victim E100

18th July 1996, Page 31
18th July 1996
Page 31
Page 31, 18th July 1996 — Shod break costs arson victim E100
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?

IA

• Ramsbottom haulier Howard Schofield was the victim of a weekend arson attack in which six vehicles and a number of trailers were destroyed, causing damage in excess of £150,000.

This came to light when the company pleaded guilty before Rotherham magistrates to using a vehicle with defective brakes. The company was fined £300 and ordered to pay £40 prosecution costs.

The driver of the vehicle, Terence McGinty, was given an absolute discharge for a similar offence, but was fined EA (X) with £20 costs after admitting driving without taking the required break.

The magistrates were told that McGinty's vehicle was checked on a motorway service area in January. The load-sensing valve was seized in the open position and one of the two air reservoirs for the rear-braking system was loose. One of the two upper restraining straps had broken and the valve had come away from its mounting.

Backhouse pointed out that neither of the latter two defects would have affected the braking efficiency of the vehicle. It was rare for load-sensing valves to stick but it could occur with the salty conditions at that time of year. The vehicle had been almost due its next safety inspection, when no doubt the defects would have been picked up.

McGinty said there had been no reason to suspect there was anything wrong with the brakes. As far as the hours offence was concerned, he had been delayed by foggy conditions over the Pennines. There was a fixed booking tune for the delivery and he took a shorter break than he should have done. Normally the journey could be completed within the permitted hours.


comments powered by Disqus