AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Jetter firm in hot water

24th March 1994, Page 21
24th March 1994
Page 21
Page 21, 24th March 1994 — Jetter firm in hot water
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?

6 6

• Gilfidden & Cragg, trading as Drain Management Systems, of Atherton, Greater Manchester and two of its drivers have been cleared of alleged offences concerning the use of two water pressure jetting vehicles.

Drivers Paul Hill and Bryn Jones were accused of failing to keep records, and of using untested vehicles without an 0licence; the company faced similar charges.

The prosecution told Leigh, Lanes Magistrates Court that when the vehicles were stopped by police it was found that the drivers were not using a record book; no 0-licence discs were displayed and the vehicles had not been plated or tested.

It was argued that waste liquid carried by the vehicles could only be "goods or burden" as it was not required for use in or in connection with the machine. The vehicles were goods vehicles so they should comply with the 0 licensing regulations and should be plated and tested.

Director Michael Cragg told the court that the operatives/drivers required special training in the use of high pressure water jetting equipment and had to carry a medical emergency card. He said that most of the vehicle's time was occupied with the use of the water pressure jetting equipment, and that was what they were hired for. They were never hired to carry waste liquid. They carried clean water in one compartment for jetting and when that water became contaminated it was removed.

Defending, Jonathan Lawton said the fundamental test was the primary purpose of the vehicle. If that primary purpose required using a machine permanently fixed to the vehicle then they were exempt from the 0-licensing, plating and testing regulations. It would be wrong to find that the liquid that was being carried was not required for use in connection with the machine. There could be no argument at all about the clean water and it would be ludicrous if that same water when contaminated was then to be considered "goods or burden".

The magistrates dismissed all the charges and directed that defence costs be paid out of public funds.


comments powered by Disqus