AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Company targeted after prohibitions

5th November 1998
Page 21
Page 21, 5th November 1998 — Company targeted after prohibitions
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?

6 •

• In ordering Dewsbury-based West Yorkshire Bulk Transport to pay fines, costs and back duty totalling £9,122 for a series of road traffic offences, the town's magistrates said they were unhappy that the only power they had was to fine when dealing with such serious offences.

The company failed to appear to answer two charges of using a vehicle without an 0-licence, two charges of using a vehicle without a vehicle excise licence, one of overloading, one of using a vehicle in a dangerous condition, one of using a vehicle with inoperative indicators, one of failing to display a test date disc on a trailer, one of failing to have a two-year tachograph calibration check and one of having no Ministry plate on a trailer. It was fined a total of 18,265 and ordered to pay £533 back duty and £329 prosecution costs.

Richard Wadkin, prosecuting for the Vehicle Inspectorate, because of concern about the number of prohibition notices issued and the condition of its vehicles when stopped in various parts of the country. In September the company had failed to appear to answer three charges of using vehicles without an 0-licence, two of using vehicles in a dangerous condition, one of permitting a vehicle to be used in contravention of a prohibition notice, one of using a vehicle with defective brakes, one of using a vehicle without an excise licence and one of failing to display a test certificate on a semi-trailer. It was ordered to pay £7,216 in fines, back duty and costs on that occasion. (CM 1-7 Oct).

The vehicle stopped in July had a 6.3% train weight overload, and six out of 10 of the second axle's spring leaves were fractured, said Wadkin.

The driver of that vehicle, Martin jolliff, was fined £300 for the overload and £41 costs. A second driver, Kenneth Thornton, admitted using a vehicle with defective IiI-:tkes and in a dangerous condition. He was fined £500, £100 costs and had his driving licence endorsed with three penally points.

Tags

Locations: Dewsbury

comments powered by Disqus