AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

'Ghost' drivers fined

20th December 1968
Page 27
Page 27, 20th December 1968 — 'Ghost' drivers fined
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?

• Eighteen drivers employed by Jos. Walsh (Darwen) Ltd. were fined on charges of forging logsheets with intent to defraud at Darwen magistrates' court. Two were fined £5 and the rest £10 each and all were ordered to pay 3gns advocate's fees.

All the offences—some drivers were charged with more than one—were committed between February, March and April this year. For the prosecution, Mr. D. Watson said an MoT examiner, Mr. T. Kelly, had noted a Walsh vehicle during a silent check on March 29. During investigations at the firm's premises the following month, it was found that two logsheets had been made out for this vehicle with different drivers on the day in question and that the writing was similar. Records for three months had then been taken away for inspection and it was discovered that many had been signed by "ghost" drivers. The forgery, therefore, was not in the usual sense of defrauding a company of money, but was designed to defraud Ministry examiners.

For the drivers, Mr. N. A. U. Haigh said the drivers did not receive an inflated remuneration for working excessive hours but were paid at the normal rate. The system of payment, which should have been brought up to date, had been evolved over many years. Before rnotorways, it had taken about 10 hours to drive to London and although it now took only approximately six hours, the drivers were still paid for the longer period and a logsheet for that time was made out. Thus if a man had only been at the wheel for six hours and by law was permitted to drive for a further time, another sheet was necessary but could not be in his name. Mr. Haigh said there had been no clandestine agreement operating within the company although it seemed the firm knew perfectly well what was going on.

The offences were against section 4 of the 1913 Forgery Act but he felt this was intent to deceive rather than defraud and none of the drivers had realized this was a forgery offence. Failure to keep records was one thing but forgery was another, he said.

Tags

Locations: London

comments powered by Disqus