Weighbridge was not accurate
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Manchesterbased Decco, and agency driver Jason Wood, have been cleared of overloading a 3.5-tonne vehicle.
Appearing before Easingwold Magistrates, the company and Wood were accused of exceeding the permitted gross weight of a VW LT35 by 1,700kg, (480!); of overloading the front axle by 210kg (14%); and of overloading the rear axle by 1,400kg (68%).
PC Russell of North Yorkshire Police said that the vehicle appeared to be overloaded and he had directed it to a public weighbridge where it was weighed.
Questioned by Jonathan Lawton, defending, Russell said the vehicle was weighed with the engine running. He thought that the handbrake had been applied. He was aware of the existence of a code of practice for static weighbridges but believed that he had weighed the vehicle correctly. Asked to explain the difference of 30kg between the sum of the axle weights and the gross weight, Russell said he thought it reflected some error in the weighbridge.
A statement was read from a trading standards officer, who said that he had checked the weighbridge for accuracy six weeks later and found it to be working within the permitted tolerance of ±20kg.
Lawton pointed out that the code of practice had not been complied with. In particular, he said, the engine had been running and the handbrake applied throughout the weighing.
There was no evidence that the weighbridge had been tested for accuracy at six monthly intervals. The test that was carried out was not sufficiently close to the date of the offence when such a weighbridge was used for enforcement purposes.
The police officer believed the 30kg discrepancy was due to the weighbridge, Lawton added, but the permitted tolerance was only 20kg The magistrates ordered the defence costs to be paid out of public funds.