Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Hefty Haz sign fines

28th March 1996, Page 9
28th March 1996
Page 9
Page 9, 28th March 1996 — Hefty Haz sign fines
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 haulier who broke safety rules while carrying a hazardous chemical was fined £3,750 by magistrates at Bradford, West Yorkshire.

The court heard how Robert Lowther drove a 20-tonne load of dimethyl sulphate (DMS) from Kent to Bradford without displaying the required Hazdiem hazard warning signs.

DMS is extremely poisonous and is believed to be carcinogenic, said factories inspector Jeff Doolan. Lowther's truck was not equipped with fire-fighting equipment and he had no training in the transport of hazardous chemicals.

Lowther, of Burberry Close, Springwood Court, Bradford, pleaded guilty to three breaches of Health & Safety Regulations. He was ordered to pay £134 costs.

Neil Allerton, appearing for Lowther, said he had set up his one-man business in the summer of 1994 and had worked as a sub-contractor for a haulage company which knew he was not authorised to carry hazardous loads and should not have provided him with them. It was also obliged to supply drivers of such loads with hazard warning signs, protective clothing and fire-fighting equipment.

"Had he known the nature of the load he was carrying he would have refused to carry it in the first place," said Allerton.


Organisations: Springwood Court
Locations: Bradford, Kent

comments powered by Disqus