AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

B's Appeal over weigh pads The company and driver Alan

23rd April 1998, Page 24
23rd April 1998
Page 24
Page 24, 23rd April 1998 — B's Appeal over weigh pads The company and driver Alan
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?

Jankunas were convicted of exceeding the permitted first axle and gross weight of a 7.5tonne road construction vehicle by Leigh magistrates. The company was fined a total of £1,600 and ordered to pay £900 prosecution costs. Jankunas was fined a total of L500 and ordered to pay £400 costs.

Kathy Anne Martin, a Trading Standards Officer, said that when the vehicle was checked with weigh pads at a site in Lowton, the permitted first axle weight had been exceeded by 400kg and the permitted gross weight by 790kg.

Questioned by Jonathan Lawton, defending, Martin said that there were no specific indications where the weigh pads should be situated within the check site.

She accepted that there was a difference in the weights shown by the pads at each end of the first axle but she was unable to explain how that occurred. She accepted that the vehicle was exempt from plating and testing as it was a road construction vehicle.

He agreed with Lawton that there was still no code of practice for the use of weigh pads. He also agreed that there were codes of practice for the use of both conventional weighbridges and dynamic axle weighers. He accepted that the maximum acceptable deflection for conventional weighbridges was plus or minus 60kg and for test purposes on dynamic axle weighers plus or minus 100kg. He agreed that the discrepancy between •the weights shown by the pads at each end of the axle exceeded those figures. He was unable to offer any explanation as to why one pad produced a different weight to the other.

Managing director Daniel Samuels said he had purchased the vehicle and converted it to a road construction vehicle and upgraded the suspension. The ministry plating certificate previously affixed had been removed but the firm had not removed the manufacturer's plate.

Lawton argued that the weights shown on the latter plate should be ignored, as they were clearly irrelevant and wrong due to the alterations made to the vehicle.


comments powered by Disqus