1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196 
Gloystarne pays for time
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Drivers' hours and tachograph offences cost Gloystame & Co and 34 of its drivers £12,720 in fines and costs when they appeared before Rotherham stipendary magistrate James Barry last week.
The drivers admitted 158 offences of excessive hours, insufficient rest, failing to operate tachographs correctly and failing to make entries on tachograph charts. They were each fined between £100 and £500. The company admitted three offences of permitting drivers to exceed 41/2 hours' driving without the required amount of break, and three offences of permitting drivers to take insufficient weekly rest. h was fined £2,400 with £1,700 costs.
Prosecuting, Andrew Roberts said that the charges arose from an investigation by the police following an accident in Cumbria. All the company's charts for its articulated vehicles were examined for the period 29 February to 4 April 1988. They showed that drivers were not properly recording how long they were driving and working, and that they were exceeding the hours' limits. A number of drivers failed to make entries on charts when their tachographs were not functioning properly.
There had been whosesale breaches of the EEC Regulations every day in March, and the charges before the court were very much sample charges, said Roberts.
Defending, Malcolm Newman said the company had pleaded guilty to six offences
of permitting on the basis of imputed or constructive knowledge, rather than actual knowledge.
The company's transport manager had misinterpreted the 41/2-hour driving rule, believing that a driver was able to take 15-minute breaks throughout his daily driving period. There was scope for a good deal of lay misunderstanding in the way that the legislation was drafted, argued Newman.
Fining the company, Barry said he was satisfied that it had not condoned the offences, but had failed in its duty to police the regulations.