AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Notification fax fails

28th June 1990, Page 23
28th June 1990
Page 23
Page 23, 28th June 1990 — Notification fax 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?

• A faulty fax machine led to J Hope (Carlisle) being ordered to pay £100 in fines and costs for an overloading offence by magistrates in Richmond, North Yorkshire.

The company had intended to notify the highway authority about the abnormal/indivisible load, but the fax machine malfunctioned and the notificaton was not sent.

The firm and driver Robert Graham denied exceeding the permitted train weight of an artic by 2,220kg, Senior trading standards officer Alan Lynn said when he check-weighed an articulated outfit being driven by Graham, the train weight was 40,220kg. The vehicle was carrying a machine and in his opinion the cargo was an abnormal and indivisible load.

Questioned by Jonathan Lawton, defending, Lynn said that the police had indicated the company had notified no less than 78 abnormal load movements over the past 12 months. He admitted the vehicle had been allowed to proceed even though notification had not been given. Lynn agreed that the design capability of the outfit was in excess of its actual train weight.

Lawton said that it was a prosecution that should never have been brought to court. The prosecution could not have been concerned about the safety of the vehicle, as it had conceded it was well within its design weight. He said the absence of notification could not have been regarded as a serious matter, as the vehicle had been allowed to proceed on its journey to Barnsley, some 129km, without requiring notice. The overload was so insignificant it should be disregarded as being too small.

The magistrates found the case proved. They fined the company £50 and gave Graham an absolute discharge. They ordered the company to pay £50 towards the £315 prosecution costs.