AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Endorsement relief

3rd October 1996, Page 31
3rd October 1996
Page 31
Page 31, 3rd October 1996 — Endorsement relief
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?

operate some skip

lorries and employ the drivers. Police followed one of the vehicles until some paper was blown from the skip. They stopped the driver and told him he would be reported for prosecution for having an insecure load. Then they came to see me and told me the same.

Even though I supply the drivers with nets to cover the skips I have now received a summons alleging that I used the vehicle when the load was not secure and it involved a danger, contrary to Section 40A of the Road Traffic Act. It says my licence is liable to endorsement.

Have I any defence and can 1 ask for my licence not to be endorsed ?

ABecause the vehicle was 1being driven by your employee on your business you were "using" the vehicle even though you were not actually with it at the time. The police do not have to prove that you had knowledge of the offence—which they would have to do if they had charged you with permitting the offence.

If you accept that things came off the vehicle you might as well plead guilty to the offence. But you should put forward what mitigation you can to reduce the size of the fine. You should tell the court that drivers have been supplied with nets to cover the load and given instructions on when and how to use them.

You could say that you were morally blameless for the offence and invite the court to give you an absolute discharge.

Conviction of a person under Section 40A involves discretionary disqualification and obligatory licence endorsement. However, Section 48 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (as amended by the 1991 Act) provides that a court must not order these if a person "proves that he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that the use of the vehicle involved a danger of injury to any person".

Do not expect the court to know this provision exists. You must bring it to their attention and explain to them that you were miles away and unaware the skip was not covered and paper was being blown from it. Explain that in the circumstances you had no reason to suspect the load was not secure.

This provision is also available to the driver where he is unaware of the insecure load but it will be more difficult for him to prove as it is his job to make sure the load is secure.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus