AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Sisson fined despite discrepancy

29th October 1987
Page 18
Page 18, 29th October 1987 — Sisson fined despite discrepancy
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?

• The Sleaford magistrates have convicted Sherburn-inElmet haulier G W Sisson and Sons of overloading and fined it 250 with £125 costs, despite a tonne difference between the train weight recorded at the. Hoddingham dynamic axle weigher and the weight recorded at the loading point.

The company and its driver John Midgeley, denied exceeding the permitted weight of the two compensating axles of the trailer by 1,520 kilograms (some 8%) on (11 November) last year.

Evidence was given by the prosecution that when weighed at Hoddingham the artic, loaded with plasterboard, had a gross train weight of 33,590kg, an excess of 1,070kg.

Eric Taylor, a weighbridge operator for British Gypsum, said that when he weighed the vehicle out after it was loaded on 10 November, the train weight was 32,500kg. A second vehicle belonging to the company had weighed out the same day at 29,760kg. The British Gypsum weighbridge had been checked for accuracy by Avery's on 1 August.

A trading standards officer gave evidence that the Hoddingham dynamic axle weigher had been checked and found to be accurate.

Defending, Gary Hodgson said the second vehicle weighed out at British Gypsum had also been checked at Hod dingham, where the train weight was found to be 29,490kg. That would suggest that there was something wrong with the method of weighing of the vehicle concerned in the alleged offence w there was a tonne difference between the train weights recorded at Hoddingham and at British Gypsum.


comments powered by Disqus