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
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168 
F SE FO' '
Page 24
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Fine for overloading is reduced on appeal
CONVERY HAULAGE, based in Northern Ireland, has been successful in getting a fine of £5,000 for overloading reduced to £1,500 on appeal to Preston Crown Court.
The company, of Portglenone, had been fined by the Leyland magistrates after admitting exceeding the permitted second axle weight of a 38-tonne artic by 3,210kg — some 30.57%.
Rachel Faux, for Vosa, told the Crown Court the artic had been carrying bagged peat from Cairnryan to Chichester when it was stopped in a check at Cuerden. When the outfit was weighed, not only was the second axle overloaded, but the permitted train weight had been exceeded by 2,750kg — some 7.24%.
A load of bagged peat was capable of accurate loading both in terms of distribution and quantificationofweight.Therefore, there was no excuse for the artic to be overloaded, and the fact that the permitted train weight had been exceeded meant that a commercial advantage had been gained.
When the company's managing director, Sean Convery, was interviewed, it appeared that the vehicle was loaded in the company's yard and that working out whether it was overloaded should have been obvious by simply counting the numbers of bags or pallets the vehicle was carrying.
It was a case of both overloading the trailer and misdistributing the load by putting too much towards the front of the vehicle.
For the company, Tim Deal said the trailer had been moved to the loading area by a three-axled tractor unit, and that the loaders were told that it was intended that a two-axled tractor unit would take the trailer for onward travel. They had simply not followed instructions.