AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Appeal fails

27th April 1985, Page 8
27th April 1985
Page 8
Page 8, 27th April 1985 — Appeal fails
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?

AN APPEAL by Penn Transport Services against a £250 fine imposed by Lichfield magistrates for an axle overload has been rejected at Stafford Crown Court.

Traffic examiner John Green said that when he checked a four-wheeled rigid vehicle belonging to the company on the Wall dynamic axle weighbridge, there was 5.9 per cent overload of 639kg.

The company argued that the fine was too severe in the circumstances. Hauliers were placed in an impossible situation as it was impossible to check weigh axles anywhere.

John Bradley, a director, disputed a statement by Mr Green that axles could be weighed on static weighbridges which he said could be inaccurate by as much as five cwt per axle.

However, Keith Blennerhassett QC said they were talking about an overload of half a tonne.

The load had not been weighed by the customer and the driver had not bothered to check weigh, and defied instructions given by the company.

He had since left the company's employment.

Dismissing the appeal, Judge Blennerhassett said that it was clearly a very conscientious company but nevertheless it was responsible for the overloaded vehicle.


comments powered by Disqus