AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

PRH fined for weighbridge

15th March 1990, Page 28
15th March 1990
Page 28
Page 28, 15th March 1990 — PRH fined for weighbridge
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?

• The operation of a defective weighbridge by Park Royal Haulage led to the company being ordered to pay 4()3 in fines and costs.

The Bury, Lanes-based company admitted one offence of issuing a delivery note which showed an inaccurate weight, and one offence of using a 31tonne weighbridge that was "unjust". The prosecution offered no evidence with regard to a further three offences involving alleged inaccurate delivery notes.

Lytham Magistrates were told that Park Royal held a contract for the delivery of shale to a bypass site from an Accrington quarry where it had its own weighbridge. A number of vehicles were checked by trading standards officers on 16 November and four were found to be carrying about a tonne less than the weights shown on the delivery notes.

For Park Royal, John Backhouse said it was a reputable company with no previous convictions. The checks the company had been carrying out on the weighbridge were considered adequate. There was no question of any real financial gain: the profit margin was between 40p and 50p per tonne.

Trading standards officers checked the weighbridge on 8 November and found it to be accurate. The company checked it again, along with the tare weights of the vehicles, on 13 November.

After the discrepancies were brought to Park Royal's notice the weighbridge was examined and sludge was found underneath the plates which might have affected the operation of the levers.

The following day trading standards officers checked the weighbridge, and found it to be accurate.