1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152 
Firm let off for limiter offence
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Manchester haulier has escaped with a conditional discharge after its tachograph consultant admitted that it had failed to warn the firm about a defective speed limiter.
Appearing before the Rochdale magistrates, lrlam-based PP O'Connor admitted the offence and an allegation that it had failed to secure the return of a tachograph chart within 21days was dropped, Prosecuting for the Vehicle Inspectorate, John Heaton said that an investigation was launched after a traffic examiner travelling on the M130 motorway saw a tipper belonging to the company travelling in the same direction. The traffic examiner was travelling at 70mph and the tipper pulled away from him before leaving the motorway.
Enquiries revealed that the driver concerned had left the company within the 21-day period. The magistrates accepted that the company probably had a reasonable excuse for not securing the return of the chart for the day in question, but the limiter offence related to an incident five days previously when the vehicle was being driven by a different driver.
Appearing for the company, Charles Stansfleld said it was very
Charles
to be before the court. A defective limiter should be reported by the driver: failing this it should be detected by tachograph analysis.
The driver seen on the motorway had joined the company five days before and had left within weeks. However, the company's tachograph analyst, retired traffic examiner Gordon Hadfield, should have revealed the fact that the limiter was defective.
The company relied on Hadfield to ensure that there were no infringements and he had written a letter indicating that it had been an oversight on his part, saying: "We must accept full responsibility for failing to bring this to your attention before it was discovered at a record check and can only apologJse for this... Immediate steps have been taken to ensure that this does not happen again."
As Mr Hadfield has taken the blame entirely for the matter slipping through the net, I submit that the company has done all they can and should be discharged," said Stansfleid.