AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Overload win on a plate

28th March 1991, Page 17
28th March 1991
Page 17
Page 17, 28th March 1991 — Overload win on a plate
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?

• Overloading charges against Hawkins Plant Hire and one of its drivers have been dismissed by Towcester magistrates after the prosecution failed to prove that the vehicle was overloaded.

The company, based at Lappington, near Wem, Shropshire and driver John Annandale denied exceeding the permitted first axle, second axle, gross and train weights of an artic last February.

The prosecution indicated that it did not intend to proceed on the alleged first axle and gross overloads.

Evidence was given by police constable Matteson who said that when the vehicle was stopped in a weight check, the second axle weighed 14,200kg — 3,700kg over its permitted 10,500kg. The train weight was 41,560kg, an excess of 3,560kg.

In reply to Jonathan Lawton, defending, PC Matteson said that he had not examined the plates attached to the vehicle and the trailer to ascertain the permitted weights; that had been done by his colleague PC Lilley.

Arguing that no offences had been disclosed by the evi dence, Lawton said it was essential that there was evidence of the lawful weights provided by the plates attached to the tractive unit and trailer.