In-the-process-of-being-summoned-to-court-over-section-40a-of-the-road-traffic-act-1988-uk-for-overloaded-90

[Man in the middle]

This OP has been given good (and consistent) advice from other places. In a nutshell:

 

Nothing he says provides anything in the way of a defence so his best option is to plead guilty. As the driver he is responsible for ensuring the vehicle was not overloaded to a dangerous degree. His ignorance of the vehicle's payload capability, etc. is no defence. The notion that he was unaware of the overloading is a bit fanciful. He contends that he should not be guilty because no danger or injury to anybody else resulted and that the vehicle was not dangerous because he detected "...no bent chassis or smoke coming from tyres or bouncing chassis.". This, of course, misses a very important point. The braking system of a vehicle is designed for a maximum payload. To carry almost twice that payload will obviously present a danger in the event of an emergency.

 

The offence carries an unlimited fine though, as with all fines, it will be income related. The penalty will probably be quite hefty in his case because of the degree of overload. 

 

It also carries three points or a disqualification, with a second conviction for a similar offence within three years seeing a mandatory ban.

 

He cannot go to prison for it under any circumstances. He is extremely unlikely to see a ban imposed for this single offence. It cannot be dealt with anywhere other than in the Magistrates' Court. It cannot be referred to the Crown Court.

 

This is now the fourth forum I have seen this question posed and I get the impression he feels that if he asks the question a sufficient number of times he may get the reassurance he seeks!  

 

[Man in the middle]

Quote

You say im seeking reassurances your wrong. I'm seeking someone who has been charged for the same or similar offence so thats why I am asking on different forum as people who have not been charged or been in the same or simialr situations usually do not know what they are talking about.

You have been advised on here, and elsewhere, by people who do know what they are talking about. Although I must accept that I have not been charged with the same or a similar offence, this includes me.

 

Somebody who has been charged with a similar offence may not necessarily know what they are talking about and in any case the outcome of their case will depend on all of its circumstances, which will almost certainly be different to yours.

 

You keep on asking questions to which there is a definitive answer which you have already been given. For example, you keep on asking whether prison is a possibility. You have been told that it is not and anybody who has faced a similar charge will tell you likewise because it is not legally possible. You can check any advice you have received online by looking at the relevant legislation. The Road Traffic Act Section 40a, under which you have been charged) is here:

 

Road Traffic Act 1988

WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

---

An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to road traffic with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission.

 

The Road Traffic Offenders’ Act (which gives, at Schedule 2, details of the penalties that can be imposed for the offence) can be found here:

 

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

---

An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to the prosecution and punishment (including the punishment without conviction) of road traffic offences with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law...

 

Quote

So, you think all my reasons are made up to get away with it?

 

I have not said that. I don't doubt they're true. I said they do not form the basis of a defence that is likely to succeed.

 

Quote

Its not ignorance i simply was not aware. 

 

It amounts to the same thing and does not provide you with a defence or even mitigation. Drivers are expected to know the law in relation to the vehicles they are driving. If they don't they can expect to be prosecuted. 

 

Quote

Are you aware on the payloads for rented vehicles in your local area? 

 

No I’m not because I don’t rent vans. If I did, particularly if I did so professionally, I would make it my business to find out the maximum payload etc. But it isn’t what I know or don’t know that matters.

 

Quote

The fines are capped in a magistrates court per offence, per axle limit exceded.

 

You have not been charged with exceeding an axle load or payload. You have been charged with “Using vehicle in dangerous condition.” Specifically when “…the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in which it is secured, is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.

 

And the fine for that offence is unlimited (though based on income)

 

The police obviously believed the weight of your load posed a danger of injury to another person.

 

I wish you luck if you decide to defend the charge on the basis you've mentioned. I’m out now.

Edited February 4, 2023 by Man in the middle

[Man in the middle]

14 hours ago, Braveheart2009 said:

Pleading not guilty fed up with people trying to screw you up trying to do a good cause thinking your robot perfect. 

 

Do be sure to let us - and the people on the other forums you have posted on, who gave their free time to advise you -  how you get on. I'm sure we'd all like to learn from your experience.. 

[Man in the middle]

51 minutes ago, BazzaS said:

are the prosecuting you for overweight, the load / vehicle posing a risk of injury to others, or both?

 

They are prosecuting under s40a of the RTA (Using vehicle in dangerous condition etc). This previous thread was locked as it was going nowhere:

 

It centred around the potential sentence (the explanations for which, provided both here and elsewhere, were not believed). This will probably end up the same way.

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Man in the middle

[Man in the middle]

 

How will finding out whether there were any issues with any unspecified weighing equipment from an unspecified time in the past help you with your argument?

 

There is a basic tenet in law that any equipment used as a measuring device is presumed to be accurate unless the contrary can be proved. If you are to use faulty equipment as a defence you must prove to the court that the equipment used to weigh your vehicle was faulty on the occasion it was used to weigh it.

 

Simply suggesting that since some other equipment used elsewhere to weigh something else was faulty, then that used to weigh your vehicle may be unreliable, will not cut the mustard. 

[Man in the middle]

9 hours ago, Braveheart2009 said:

Also, the police visually monitored my vehicle for 10 mins driving, how could they possibly view that as dangerous driving out of 3 hours of driving?

 

I didn't know you'd been charged with dangerous driving.  First you've mentioned of it.

 

I've tried, but I think I'm out (again).  Do let us know how it goes.

[Man in the middle]

Quote

Been advised on here and elsewhere of prison sentence, community service, £100,000 fines, court appearence in the dock with the traffic commissioner grilling you about what you done,  for being 2.71 ton over 77%. overloaded

Not on here you haven't (and nor elsewhere that I've seen). Those notions came from your vivid imagination and were dismissed on here (which you chose not to believe).

Quote

They slapped me with 3 points and £245 fine.

Which was in line with most suggestions, though the fine is a bit generous for such serious overloading.

Quote

 just my geuine reasons which lawyers/public ridiculed me...

That's principally because, from your description, they were ridiculous.

Quote

Main reason I plead guilty was £2000-4000 plus lawyer fees to pay 

You don't need a lawyer to plead Not Guilty. I would suggest your guilty plea was very wise since, again from your description of events, you clearly were guilty.

Thanks for letting us know the outcome.

 

[Man in the middle]

Quote

The 3 points come off automatically after 3 years from the offence date but they remain on your driving history record between 4-11 years depending on severity.

They remain active for “totting up” purposes for three years, they are removed from your driving record after four years and you must declare them to most insurers for five years. Only offences involving driving under the influence of drink or drugs remain on your record for eleven years.

Quote

There was a £90 victim surcharge?  there was no victim involved?

It is officially simply a “surcharge”. It is popularly known as a “Victim Surcharge” because it was introduced to fund organisations which provide help for victims (such as Victim Support, the Witness Service, domestic violence charities, etc.). It is imposed on all defendants subject to a fine regardless of the offence and it is set at 40% of the fine (and of the highest fine only if the defendant has more than one fine imposed at a single hearing). The Magistrates must impose it and have no discretion over the amount. As an aside, your figures do not add up and I suspect the £90 you mention was prosecution costs, but no matter.  

Quote

Dealing with a social worker to decide their opinion what to write on the judges report.

What? For a minor, non-imprisonable traffic offence which can only be dealt with by way of a fine? There must be something we don’t know about.

Quote

I'm going to claim hardship on the fine I will be dealing with an algorithm.

Good luck to you with that (and to the court that has to deal with your claim).