Wrong overload charge
Page 17
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Overloading charges against John Heppenstall, trading as Heppenstall's Transport Services of Brighouse, and one of his drivers, were dismissed by Huddersfield magistrates after it was claimed that they had been charged with the wrong offence.
Heppenstall and driver Graham Bower were accused of using a four-axled artic where the train weight of 37,420kg exceeded the weight shown in the plating certificate by 5,420kg (16.92%), contrary to Regulation 80 of the Construction and Use regulations.
In reply to Gary Hodgson, defending, PC Milburn of West Yorkshire Police said that the weight shown on the certificate was 38,000kg. However, he maintained that the maximum permitted weight of a four-axled combination was 32,000kg.
Questioned further, he accepted that the exact figure would not be 32,000kg and admitted that he had not measured the axle spacing to find out exactly what the permitted train weight should have been.
Hodgson argued that the vehicle had not exceeded the train weight shown on the plating certificate. The prosecution stated that as it had been a fouraxled combination, the maximum permitted weight was less than 38 tonnes and under such circumstances any offence was contrary to Construction and Use Regulation 77 and not Regulation 80.
Magistrates directed that the defence costs be met out of public funds.