AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Dirty water needs licence

4th February 1999
Page 21
Page 21, 4th February 1999 — Dirty water needs licence
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?

Using a high-pressure water jetting vehicle without the authority of an 0licence has cost Leeds-based Lanes for Drains 1600 in fines and costs. The company admitted the offence when it appeared before the Chester magistrates.

Prosecuting for the Vehicle Inspectorate, John Heaton said that the company had faced two

charges alleging the unauthorised use of such a vehicle. The first case was heard by the Leyland magistrates, who convicted the company. That decision was appealed to Lancaster Crown Court. There the judge ruled that no 0-licence was required when the vehicle was carrying clean water to the site where the jetting operation was to be carried out—but one was required when it was carrying

dirty water away from the site.

Defending, Jonathan Lawton said the law relating to such vehicles was extremely complex. The company did have an 0-licence but he had advised them that water jetting vehicles were exempt from 0-licensing. The complexities had been compounded by the conflicting decision of the Crown Court in Lancaster. The company had taken the view that as it already had an 0-licence it would specify all its jetters on that licence rather than appealing against the decision.

Suggesting that an absolute discharge would be appropriate in the circumstances, Lawton said that it had not been a wilful act on the part of the company as there had been genuine confusion over the legal position.

The magistrates fined the company £500 with £100 costs.


comments powered by Disqus