AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Customer weighed casting and multiplied

22nd November 1974
Page 25
Page 25, 22nd November 1974 — Customer weighed casting and multiplied
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?

A. J. APPLIN (Coventry) • Ltd, of Dunchurch, Rugby, received an absolute discharge, before Long Eaton magistrates last week, on two charges of overloading brought by the Police.

Mr A. J. Applin, managing director, and chairman of the Coventry, Rugby and North Warwickshire subarea of the Road Haulage Association, pleaded guilty to both offences. He said that when his lorry was stopped on the Ml, it was carrying castings for a Coventry firm. The customer's method of calculation was to weigh one casting and then multiply by the number carried to obtain the weight of the load. It was not until the vehicle was stopped that it was realised there was an overload.

Evidence was given that the gross permitted weight of the lorry was 12 tons and it was weighed at 14 tons 16 cwt 1 qr 21 lb; that of its rear axle was 8.6 tons and it was weighed at 11 tons 17 cwt 1 qr 141b. Mr Applin produced a letter from the customer,

Brett's Stampings Ltd, admitting liability and a mistake in the weight calculations. He said his company had been carrying for Brett's for 14 years without any previous trouble.

As chairman of the RH A sub-area, he was speaking for all his members who were well aware of the dangers arising from overloading. In cases were due diligence could be shown it was unfair if they also had to go before the Licensing Authority for consideration of revocation, curtailment or suspension of their 0 licences.

Mr Applin added that he was a principal supporter of a new instrument being developed by C. L. Instruments Ltd, which would tell drivers instantly when their vehicles were overloaded. His offer to call a witness on this subject was declined by the court.