'Nominal' fine for overload
Page 14
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Derbyshire heavy haulier
66 Heanor Haulage
has had £560 knocked off its overloading fines after a Crown Court Judge said they were nominal penalties, rather than fines designed to show blame.
'Ile company and driver Paul Marriott appealed to Bradford Crown Court against an £825 fine imposed by Huddersfield Magistrates for an 8% train weight overload and a
15 overioad on the compensating axles of a semi-trailer. Marriott's fines were reduced to £265.
Appearing for company and driver, Jonathan Lawton said the load had been one of 20 or so similar loads which were of a legal weight under the Construe. tion and Use Regulations.
As a result of misreading his instructions Marriott took out a multi-use trailer which was heavier than a standard semi-trailer for work within the C&U regs.
Lawton said the overload was due to "simple human error".
lie added that the combination was capable of operating at substantially greater weights than it had been carrying. There had been no overload on the tractor unit and the individual axle weights on the road were less than with a 38-tonne C&U combination.
Lawton said the intention of the legislation had been to penalise dangerous practices and there had been nothing hazardous in this situation.
Reducing the fines, Judge Garner said that it appeared that the magistrates had failed to con sider the issues of guilt and the gravity of the offences. If they had done so, he considered that the fines would have been a lot less.