Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Tower wagon was not a 'goods vehicle'

28th June 1974, Page 21
28th June 1974
Page 21
Page 21, 28th June 1974 — Tower wagon was not a 'goods vehicle'
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?

A DEFENCE contention, that a vehicle fitted with a rectangular extendible tower and used as a tower wagon for street lighting, was not a goods vehicle, was accepted by Garstang magistrates last week.

Anderson and Heeley Ltd, of Kirkburton, Huddersfield, appeared on a charge of employing a driver to drive a heavy goods vehicle who was not the holder of a heavy goods vehicle driving licence. The driver, Ian Molloy, was charged with driving without such a licence.

The police, prosecuting, submitted that as the vehicle was originally a 3-ton Austin flat lorry, and as goods could still be carried around the tower, then it was still a goods vehicle.

Mr. J. A. Backhouse, defending, said the tower was permently bolted to the vehicle chassis, giving it an unladen weight of 3 tons 5 cwt. It was necessary to look at the vehicle in its adapted state and consider what it was ordinarily used for.

If the answer was the carriage of goods then it was a goods vehicle. But if the answer was a tower wagon for raising and lowering maintenance men to lamp's, then it was not a goods vehicle. If it was not a goods vehicle then the driver did not require to hold a heavy goods vehicle driving licence.

Dismissing the summonses the magistrates refused the defendants costs, saying that it was an important case and a proper one for the police to have brought.


Locations: Austin

comments powered by Disqus