AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Haulier penuitted hours offences

20th January 2000
Page 18
Page 18, 20th January 2000 — Haulier penuitted hours offences
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?

Drivers' hours offences committed by Burntwood, Staffordshire-based John Shein, and permitting simi lar offences by his two drivers, have led to fines and costs totalling £1,990.

Shein pleaded guilty before Lichfield magistrates to 27 offences of exceeding the daily driving limit, taking insufficient daily rest and driving for more than 4.5 hours without taking a 45-minute break. He made a similar plea to 21 offences of permitting similar offences by his drivers, and to four offences of failing to secure the return of tachograph records.

Prosecuting for the Vehicle Inspectorate, David James said the objective of the drivers' hours and tachograph regulations was to avoid tired drivers and protect road users. In Shein's case the overall position was one of a lack of organisation rather than a deliberate attempt to cram more in than could be done in the time available. When the tachograph records of three drivers including Shein were examined, 78 offences were discovered.

At an earlier hearing driver Karl Ward had been fined £795 with £115 costs; driver Dryden Murdie had been fined £700 with £110 costs.

For Shein, Harry Hodgkinson said he accepted the understanding that he and his drivers had of the regulations was not what it should be.

Shein had not been in transport until he took a start-up course three years ago, and he had worked hard to build the business. The tragedy was that having appeared before the Traffic Commissioner. Shein had already lost four vehicles from his licence and now only had a licence for two vehicles. As a result he had lost his best contract.

The offences had not been due to dishonesty but to a certain level of incompetence. Shein had fallen foul of the regulations by not properly understanding them at the time.

The magistrates fined Shein £1,400 with £590 costs.


comments powered by Disqus