Any overloading is very serious warns NWLA
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Go Well Freight Ltd of Stockport
II Although accepting Go Well Freight Ltd, of Stockport, had taken adequate steps to prevent future overloading, North Western LA Roy Hutchings warned that any overloading offence was a very serious matter. However, he decided not to take disciplinary action against the company's international licence, renewing it in respect of six vehicles and three trailers.
The LA said that in June the company had been fined £1,080 for overloading offences by the Knutsford magistrates, In July, 1985, the company had been given a formal warning at a disciplinary inquiry following overloading convictions.
Director David Gowrie said the company also had four vehicles based in Northern Ireland, operating a 24-hour express groupage service on behalf of General Motors. At Knutsford it had been fined £340 for a 14% gross overload, £340 for a 4.2% first axle overload, and £400 for a 19.8% second axle overload.
The driver, fined £50 per offence, had been with the company for only two weeks, said Gowrie, and was not familiar with the different types of stillages used on the General Motors traffic. When he picked up the load the stillages had been larger than the ones the company had anticipated from the number it had been asked to move.
The company was taking delivery of a new fleet of vehicles, with upgraded carrying capacities, so he could not see a similar problem arising again. The principal problem in July 1985 had been drivers' hours offences and steps had been taken to prevent any recurrence.
For the company, John Backhouse said the fines at Knutsford had been fairly heavy. A judge had ruled at Leeds Crown Court that where an employer was totally unaware an offence was being committed, and there had been no negligence, it was inappropriate to impose a penalty, The Knutsford magistrates took the view that any overloading offence should carry a substantial penalty. At Bristol Crown Court a judge had said that in imposing penalties regard should be paid to the fact that multiple offences arose out of the same incident.
Arguing that the penalties imposed at Knuts -ford were adquate and that there was no need for further penalty, Bacichouse said the company had not been aware of the facts that gave rise to the offences. They were outside the firm's knowledge until after the offences occurred and there had been no negligence on the company's part.
Renewing the licence, the LA said that he shared the view of the Knutsford magistrates, that any offence of overloading was a very serious matter, particularly where the weight was well in excess of the design weight as that must be a danger to other vehicles on the road.