AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Jetter subject to 0-licensing

2nd June 1994, Page 14
2nd June 1994
Page 14
Page 14, 2nd June 1994 — Jetter subject to 0-licensing
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?

Keywords : Law / Crime

• Magistrates in Leigh, Lancashire have ruled that a water jetting tanker is subject to the 0-Licensing regulations.

Richard Fletcher, trading as Drain Rite, of Standish. Wigan, had pleaded not guilty to using the tanker without an 0-licence, using it when a higher rate of excise duty was payable, and failing to cause the driver to use a record book. The driver, Michael Hewitt, of Ince, pleaded not guilty to failing to use a driver's record book.

Constable Graham Robinson, of Greater Manchester Police said he had stopped a four-wheeled Jet-Vac on the East Lancashire Road at Leigh last June. The vehicle, which had been working in the St Helens area, was carrying silt. It was taxed as a street cleaning vehicle, with a nil rate of duty.

Arguing that the tanker was a

"goods vehicle" and therefore subject to Operators' Licensing, Alan Bakker, prosecuting, referred the court to the case of Jardine vs Derbyshire in which the divisional court held that a vehicle equipped with an asphalt boiler was not exempt because the vehicle was primarily constructed to carry asphalt. He said the waste liquid carried by the tanker could only be regarded as "goods or burden" which could not be held to be required for use in or in connection with the machine.

was entitled to the benefit of the exemptions in the regulations. It would be wrong to find that the liquid that was being carried was not required for use in connection with the water jetting machine. There could be no argument at all about the clean water carried before the jetting operation. The same water, when contaminated, should not be considered as "goods".

The magistrates found the case proved. They fined Fletcher £50 for having no 0-licence, and £50 for failing to cause the driver to keep a record, with no separate penalty in relation to the excise licence offence. They also ordered Fletcher to pay 1319.98 back duty and £145 costs.

Hewitt was fined £25, with £45 costs, for failing to keep a record.


comments powered by Disqus