The legislation that governs abnormal load regulations can be complex in areas, leading to misunderstandings.
This is why it is imperative for abnormal load officers to be suitably and sufficiently trained.
This article, from our perspective as Transport Solicitors, is to inform abnormal load operators of such errors that officers can make so they are better equipped to challenge officers should the need arise.
Below is simply a summary of some of the common errors police officers make in abnormal load transport that we encounter on a regular basis.
If you dispute the lawful basis of a decision made by the police, we urge you to seek legal advice.
While we aren’t criticising the police, I am sure we would all agree it is in the public interest for any misapplications of the law to be called out but in a respectful and constructive way.
Common errors with the provision of police escorts – a typical scenario
We are well-aware of police forces insisting that a police escort is required for a particular movement, then stating if a police escort is not requested, the move cannot take place, and the movement order is rejected.
If the movement goes ahead with a police escort, some operators then find they are charged for the police escorting service provided.
This is despite not requesting said service and in fact disputing the need for a police escort based upon their own risk assessments.
Understanding the legal basis of notifications
There are a few issues with the above scenario.
Firstly, the term ‘movement order’ is a term adopted by police forces and is misleading.
It is not an ‘order’ or application to move, it is a notice of intention to transport an abnormal load.
Can the police refuse notifications?
The police have no express power to refuse notifications.
Again, it is a notice of intention to move.
The movement is legal if the statutory requirements are complied with.
The only intervention from the police can be the ability to change the date, time or route.
The police can also halt a vehicle in a place on, or adjacent to, the road on which the vehicle is travelling, if it is either in the interests of road safety or to avoid undue traffic congestion.
Should you be charged when a police escort is required for safety purposes?
In practical terms, if the police decide that a vehicle movement requires a police escort for safety purposes, then our understanding is this is an operational matter.
As such, no charge should be levied (this is also assuming no request has been made for police escorting services).
On the other hand, where an operator has requested the provision for police escorting services, which is accepted by the police and an agreement is formed, then this is capable of amounting to Special Police Services.
Due to this, a charge is likely to apply, in line with the agreement between the operator and the Police.
We encourage operators to review the below articles we have published previously which address when the police can charge for their services and what should be done if you have been wrongly charged for police services.
Misapplying the permitted length for single rigid units to vehicle combinations
Another common error we see police officers making is measuring the overall length of an abnormal indivisible load combination, then mistakenly applying the overall length limits for single rigid units, rather than the overall length limit for Part 2 vehicle-combinations.
The difference is significant, as the length limit for Part 2 vehicle combinations under STGO 2003 which, if exceeded, means a notification is required is 25.9 metres, whereas for single rigid units, only 18.75 metres.
This creates the situation where the overall length of a Part 2 vehicle combination might be measured by a police officer at 22 metres, which is legal, but the officer wrongly believes the relevant length limit is 18.75 metres, and as such, thinks a notification is needed.
This leads us onto the next common error we see.
Requiring notifications to the police for movements that do not require advance notice
We have recently encountered police officers stopping empty vehicle-trailer combinations when returning from a delivery of a load and detaining the vehicles and trailers until a notification is submitted.
This is despite the fact none of the dimensions that trigger the need for advance notice to the police are exceeded.
This then means operators are left without their vehicles and trailers until a notification is submitted and the two clear days pass, usually causing the operator significant loss.
We can only surmise that this is being caused by officers not understanding the law, but it is of grave concern if this becomes more common practice across the UK.
Recent examples we are aware of are based upon police officers mistakenly thinking the permitted length limit for empty vehicle/trailer combinations is the length limit for single rigid units.
Again, this stresses the need to suitably and sufficiently train abnormal load officers before they make such costly mistakes.
If this has happened to you or is happening to you, we urge you to see legal advice so you know if you can challenge any unlawful detainment of your vehicles and consider if you have potential claims against the police for the loss you have suffered.
For further advice, please contact James Edes today.