1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216 
Liverpool firm fined £2,500 in its absence after failing to produce tachograph charts
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FAILING TO PRODUCE tachograph records on demand has cost Liverpool-based Maguire Trading £2,648 in fines and costs.
The company failed to appear before the city's magistrates and it was convicted in its absence of failing to produce tachograph records when requested to do so at its premises.
Traffic examiner Colin Rowlands told the court that in October the company had been sent a letter requiring it to produce tachograph records and daily running sheets for the period January-September 2006. Director Robert Maguire had written in reply stating that the previous three months' charts were with its tachograph analyst consultants and that the charts prior to that had been sent to the Inland Revenue for audit.
Maguire had gone on to say that he hoped to have them available within the next two weeks. Various tachograph records had been produced on 26 October and 29 November. However, analysis of those records revealed that 3,269km covered by seven vehicles were unaccounted for.When interviewed Maguire had said that the charts that had been produced were the only ones that he could produce.
The magistrates fined the company £2,500 with £148 costs.