AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Kings given discharge

28th March 1991, Page 16
28th March 1991
Page 16
Page 16, 28th March 1991 — Kings given discharge
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?

IN Kings Heavy Haulage (Bristol) was given absolute discharges for gross and train weight offences on a Special Types vehicle, after it was alleged that a former director had deliberately sent out the wrong vehicle to make trouble for the company.

Kings and its driver, Andrew Crossan, were before Towcester magistrates on seven charges, including exceeding the permitted width, having no MoT plate, and excess axle, gross and train weights.

The prosecution indicated they did not wish to continue proceedings against the driver who, it was satisfied, had acted in good faith. In view of the company's explanations, it only proposed to proceed against Kings over the gross and train weight offences.

The company admitted ex-: ceeding the permitted gross weight by 14,310kg and the permitted train weight by 62,540kg.

Director Richard King said the movement had been noti fled as a seven-axle combination, although a six-axle combination was actually used. The outfit had been allocated to the job by a former director of the company who had been with Kings for 18 months and who had special knowledge of the plant being carried.

The person concerned must have been well aware that a seven-axled combination was required. There had been no hint of any problems with that director, but on the morning of the incident he arrived late and put his car keys on the desk, saying that he was resigning. It appeared that the person concerned had deliberately mismatched the outfit to the load to cause trouble for the company, said King.

Defending, Jonathan Lawton said it was a bizarre case, but one in which he asked that, in the peculiar circumstances, the court grant the company absolute discharges.

The magistrates ordered the company to pay £20 costs.