Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Company permitted rest offences

6th June 1996, Page 14
6th June 1996
Page 14
Page 14, 6th June 1996 — Company permitted rest offences
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?

• Weekly rest offences have cost Salford-based Pinecote and five

of its drivers, a total of £1,680 in fines and costs.

The company, trading as Fins, pleaded guilty before Salford Magistrates to six offences of permitting the drivers to take insufficient weekly rest. It was fined £900 with £30 costs. The company also admitted one offence of the unauthorised use of a vehicle and was given a conditional discharge for 12 months.

Prosecuting for the Vehicle Inspectorate, senior traffic examiner Tony Anderson said that when one of the company's vehicles was stopped in a chuck in Cumbria no 0-licence disc was being displayed and the driver had failed to take the required weekly rest period. This led to a check of the company's tachograph records, revealing the other offences which would have been obvious to the company if proper checks had been made.

Transport manager Gordon Hadfield said this was the first time in 11 years' trading that the company had had any problems with drivers' hours. They now realised that they should have carried out more rigorous checks of the tacho records.

The drivers were fined £100 per offence with 00 costs.


Locations: Salford

comments powered by Disqus