Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Appeal sought on weighbridge accuracy

2nd December 1993
Page 15
Page 15, 2nd December 1993 — Appeal sought on weighbridge accuracy
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?

• Watkinson Lifting and Transportation, of Keighley, and driver Gary Holmes are to appeal after being convicted of two overloading offences and fined a total of 2750 with 2165.85 costs.

The company and Holmes denied exceeding the permitted third axle and train weights of a 38-tonne artic by 6% before Huddersfield magistrates. The court heard that when the vehicle was checked at the Ainley Top dynamic axle weighbridge, Holmes said that he had weighed the vehicle after loading at Doncaster. The weighbridge showed 3 7,600kg so he thought that he was all right.

Defending, Jonathan Lawton said two weighbridges, both of which were required by law to be accurate, had given conflicting weights. Any doubt ought to be resolved in favour of the company and driver. Trading Standards officers had a duty to protect the public from inaccurate weighing practices.

After the magistrates had found the charges proved, Lawton said the Code of Practice for dynamic axle weighbridges gave a tolerance of plus or minus 150kg per axle. If that was allowed in this case, the overload was substantially less than 6%. Given the design capabilities of the vehicle, there was no question of any danger or excess damage to the public roads. Neither was it a weight that ought to have been obvious to the driver.

Fining the company 2600 and Holmes 2150, the magistrates said that in their view it was a very serious case.

comments powered by Disqus