AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

On-board weigher wasn't used

3rd November 2005
Page 35
Page 35, 3rd November 2005 — On-board weigher wasn't used
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?

EXCEEDING THE permitted gross weight of a 32-tonne tipper has cost Southall, Middlesex-based Hennellys and one of its drivers a total of £950 in fines and costs.

The company, of Park Avenue, Southall, and its driver. Keith Powell, of Arthur Close, Woolwich, pleaded guilty to the offence when they appeared before Barking magistrates .

Hennellys was fined £300 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £235; Powell was fined £300 with £115 costs.

Prosecuting for VOSA, Anthony Ostrin said the tipper driven by Powell, which was carrying muck, was stopped in a roadside check. When the vehicle was weighed it was found that the maximum permitted gross weight of 32,000kg had been exceeded by 1,500kg, an overload of 4.7 cr., .

Hennellys' transport manager, Michael Samuel, told the court that the company had an on-board weighing system fitted to the vehicle concerned and had given its drivers instructions on how to use that equipment. Such equipment was fitted to all new vehicles acquired by the company.

Unfortunately, the driver did not use the equipment on the day of the check.


comments powered by Disqus