AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Heavy fine for recovery case

25th May 1995, Page 19
25th May 1995
Page 19
Page 19, 25th May 1995 — Heavy fine for recovery case
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?

• Wigan Magis trates ordered Transtrack (War rington) to pay £ 3.765 in fines,

costs and back duty after deciding that a Volvo artic was not being used as a recovery vehicle.

Transtrack, of Bootle, was convicted of using a vehicle with no vehicle excise licence, 0-licence, ministry plate or tachograph.

PC Graham Robinson of Greater Manchester Police told

the court that he and traffic exam iner Keith Henry, saw the combination, which had a low loader trailer

and winch, parked in Nicol Mere Drive, Wigan with its

ramp down.

They woke up the driver and while they were talking to him a tarmac laying machine came up to rear ramp, preparing to load.

Henry said the driver had referred to the artic as a "yard

shunter". When they returned 20 minutes later, the vehicle had gone.

Transtrack director said the vehicle had been sent to Nicol

Mere drive to pick up a disabled road roller. The driver knew that this was a recovery vehicle: it had not been sent, and would not be

sent, to pick up working plant.

Questioned by John Heaton, prosecuting for the DOT, Smith agreed that he had not been at Nicol Mere Drive on the day of the offence.

Driver Wayne Heaton, said that he had been told to pick up a broken down road roller but had to wait for the workmen laying the tarmac to finish. He then reversed the vehicle up to the road roller which was winched on to the trailer.

In reply to John Heaton, Wayne Heaton was adamant that he had not picked up any working plant and he denied saying that the vehicle was a yard shunter. He agreed that the vehicle was capable of carrying both broken down and working plant but denied picking up both the road roller and the tarmac machine. He maintained that the ramp had been up when the police officer and traffic examiner saw the vehicle and that it was 35 minutes later before he was able to pick up the road roller.

The magistrates fined the company a total of 11,965 with .E250 costs and ordered it to pay £1,550 in back duty.


comments powered by Disqus