ADVICE COMES UNDER ATTACK
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
QIn a roadside check the Ministry discovered that we had a leaking master cylinder (tandem system), and we are now being prosecuted under Regulation 18 (1) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.
We approached our solicitor who has told us that we have to plead guilty. The vehicle in question is only seven months old and had a major service and inspection only four days before the check. From the amount of fluid lost the leak had only just started.
Surely our solicitor is wrong?
IS, Plymouth.
AA The wording of Regulation /18 (1) is: "Every part of every braking system and the means of operation there of fitted to a vehicle shall be maintained in good and efficient working order and be properly adjusted."
Firstly, were the brakes properly adjusted? From what you say, they were. Secondly, were they maintained in a good and efficient working order? Again, you have evidence to say that they were.
In my opinion your solicitor is wrong. Regulation 18 (1) should only apply when there is clear evidence that the failure was due to lack of preventative maintenance. Modern braking systems are designed to take into account just your situation — in other words, when one part of a tandem system fails then you still have brakes albeit a little less efficient.
If you can prove the above, and can demonstrate that the failure was a mechanical defect (seal or 0 ring), then you should plead not guilty and say that your vehicle complied with Regulation 18 (3) 'Service and secondary braking efficiencies'.
I know that many advocates will disagree, but it is worth a try and, even if you are convicted, the penalty at the most should be one of absolute discharge.