But do they need to Work

Assassin said:
There are certain variables in play here such as date of manufacture, etc.

Anything manufactured after a certain date must be CE marked and if your trailer qualifies then under EU legislation it is very clear, if it has to be fitted, or is fitted then it must work as both UK and EU legislation applies to anything and everything manufactured or imported for use within the EU, and it should have a Certificate of Conformity which is basically a piece of paper stating that it complies with various conditions ranging from structural integrity to the approval and CE marking of sub assemblies such as bought in components which may be tow hitches, brakes, and even the wheels and tyres.

If it is pre CE marking then you have to inspect it periodically and you can replace items which wear out through use or age, but you must fit replacement components equal to, or of a higher specifications than the original components.
Click to expand...

Thanks Useful information. My trailer is 20 years old so not sure where that would place it re CE.
 
To make it clear to all those who do not read the question. I have the parts coming to fix my trailer (It is the front hitch assembly with damper that has corroded and seized) but I was simply interested in what the UK law was in this regard as it is very difficult to track this down which in itself is very poor for people who are trying to understand their position.

I have a deep dislike of Lawyers and am of the firm belief that the Law is generally written in such a way by Lawyers (or Ex Lawyers) so that the normal person in the street cannot understand it and thus making more work for Lawyers.

It would be quite simple to write laws and other legal documents in plain English. Stop speaking in Latin would also help. It is not big and it is not clever
 
Any replacement component must now comply with CE marking regulations and your replacement component will comply if it is from a reputable European Community retailer and you should have no problems because of its CE marking, but I would suggest a little belt and bracers approach by keeping the original invoice which should contain a date and a part number, most likely it will also contain a manufacturers name and part number which can be traced back to the manufacturer and its Certificate of Conformity which proves it exceeds the minimum legal requirements.
 
Assassin said:
Any replacement component must now comply with CE marking regulations and your replacement component will comply if it is from a reputable European Community retailer and you should have no problems because of its CE marking, but I would suggest a little belt and bracers approach by keeping the original invoice which should contain a date and a part number, most likely it will also contain a manufacturers name and part number which can be traced back to the manufacturer and its Certificate of Conformity which proves it exceeds the minimum legal requirements.
Click to expand...

Its a genuine AL-KO Part all stamped. I don't keep paperwork and receipts for this sort of thing. In my view Paperwork proves very little it is just paper. We fill our lives with it and many on here think it is way more important than it is but thanks for the suggestion
 
Bigplumbs said:
Its a genuine AL-KO Part all stamped. I don't keep paperwork and receipts for this sort of thing. In my view Paperwork proves very little it is just paper. We fill our lives with it and many on here think it is way more important than it is but thanks for the suggestion
Click to expand...

s
So how would you prove that your replacement parts comply if required to do so?
 
stelican said:
s
So how would you prove that your replacement parts comply if required to do so?
Click to expand...

The chances of being required to do so are very remote and would you find the paperwork any way..... Hang on stop I bet you have a filing system at home with colour coded files all presented in date order, or do you scan it into a computer....... Now what happens if your house burns down and the paperwork goes up in flames as well as the computer..... Oh I hear you say I have a backup which fails..... Get real I say or will the sky actually fall

Have you got all your pay slips and utility bills going back to when they started.... I hope so in case the Tax man comes knocking

Anyway as I said the parts are stamped into the metal with all the same information as on the original part
 
Last edited:
Bigplumbs said:
The chances of being required to do so are very remote and would you find the paperwork any way..... Hang on stop I bet you have a filing system at home with colour coded files all presented in date order, or do you scan it into a computer....... Now what happens if your house burns down and the paperwork goes up in flames as well as the computer..... Oh I hear you say I have a backup which fails..... Get real I say or will the sky actually fall

Have you got all your pay slips and utility bills going back to when they started.... I hope so in case the Tax man comes knocking

Anyway as I said the parts are stamped into the metal with all the same information as on the original part
Click to expand...

9/10 for that one.....!! point deducted for tetchiness!!!!!
 
stelican said:
s
So how would you prove that your replacement parts comply if required to do so?
Click to expand...
There is no law in the uk requiring bigumbs to do so. If accused he would simply put the state to proof. It is for the state to prove that he has broken the law. Which will be difficult with Alko stamped on the kit

Back to original post, I'm with bigplumbs here. He has asked a very precise question and the several lectures above suggesting How he maintains a trailer miss the point entirely. I completelyvget the question bigplumbs but I dont know the answer and it is a half hour job even finding the law, which is all in secondary legislation.

I don't agree bigolumbs comment that the law can be written simply. In everyday English we often figure out what the other person means by educated guessing. When you're fining, jailing or taxing someone the law must be written with absolute precision. Also, if you were being bailed out by a lawyer (e.g. The rape that wasn't case this week, where police unlawfully didn't hand over evidence and the innocent guy got convicted) you might not hate him/her so much.
 
jfm said:
There is no law in the uk requiring bigumbs to do so. If accused he would simply put the state to proof. It is for the state to prove that he has broken the law. Which will be difficult with Alko stamped on the kit

Back to original post, I'm with bigplumbs here. He has asked a very precise question and the several lectures above suggesting How he maintains a trailer miss the point entirely. I completelyvget the question bigplumbs but I dont know the answer and it is a half hour job even finding the law, which is all in secondary legislation.

I don't agree bigolumbs comment that the law can be written simply. In everyday English we often figure out what the other person means by educated guessing. When you're fining, jailing or taxing someone the law must be written with absolute precision. Also, if you were being bailed out by a lawyer (e.g. The rape that wasn't case this week, where police unlawfully didn't hand over evidence and the innocent guy got convicted) you might not hate him/her so much.
Click to expand...

Many thanks for the support. I take your last point about Lawyers but I still don't like them much based on several experiences with them with regard to civil law not criminal I would add.

My definition of a Laywer (Civil) is similar to an Auditor which is as follows:

Someone who walks over the Battle Field after the Battle stabbing the Survivors :)

Oh and charging way to much per stab
 
Bigplumbs said:
Many thanks for the support. I take your last point about Lawyers but I still don't like them much based on several experiences with them with regard to civil law not criminal I would add.

My definition of a Laywer (Civil) is similar to an Auditor which is as follows:

Someone who walks over the Battle Field after the Battle stabbing the Survivors :)

Oh and charging way to much per stab
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you've said....up until now.

1/10 for effort in selecting a good lawyer.....or 10/10 if you were seeking a carp one:p
 
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the word of the law is as follows (I haven't checked):

"Loads not exceeding 750kg: trailer must have working brakes

Loads >750kg: trailer must be fitted with brakes."

It could be argued that:

1. The language used for the higher towing weights is distinguishable. If Parliament's intention was to require working brakes for loads >750kg, the same language would have been used for the lighter loads. Hence, on a proper construction, the only requirement for the higher load is that something that came out of a box marked brakes be bolted on to the frame.

2. A brake is a device that can be used to apply a retarding force. If it isn't functional, it's just some bits of metal. Hence, saying that a brake must be fitted is exactly the same as saying that a working brake must be fitted and the use of the word 'working' in the first expression is unnecessary.

Equally, I'm sure that bigplumbs doesn't hate me even though I'm a lawyer. In fairness, I do have that effect on people and so he probably would if he knew me. But, of course, expressing a hatred for the genus 'lawyer' whilst not necessarily hating individual lawyers shows that wordsmithery isn't just confined to the second-oldest profession. :encouragement:
 
Without being found guilty of jumping in, (sooooo know what you mean), you my want to look at "The Road Vehicle Construction and Use regs 1986". I did think to have a look myself but CBA. As a general rule, if something is fitted then it should work I say again, "AS A GENERAL RULE", that doesn't mean your Churchill nodding dog needs to be in full working order or that your air freshener is still producing a pleasant odour of cinnamon and pine. Soz if someone has already mentioned this but CBA to read to the end of the post.

And, just found this, not sure it helps; Application of brakes of trailers

19. Where a trailer is drawn by a motor vehicle the driver (or in the case of a locomotive one of the persons employed in driving or tending the locomotive) shall be in a position readily to operate any brakes required by these Regulations to be fitted to the trailer as well as the brakes of the motor vehicle unless a person other than the driver is in a position and competent efficiently to apply the brakes of the trailer.
Provided that this regulation shall not apply to a trailer which—
(a)
in compliance with these Regulations, is fitted with brakes which automatically come into operation on the overrun of the trailer; or
(b)
which is a broken down vehicle being drawn, whether or not in consequence of a breakdown, in such a manner that it cannot be steered by its own steering gear.

What score do I get and do I gat a Gold star. Oh please sir!
 
Last edited:
derekbland said:
Without being found guilty of jumping in, (sooooo know what you mean), you my want to look at "The Road Vehicle Construction and Use regs 1986". I did think to have a look myself but CBA. As a general rule, if something is fitted then it should work I say again, "AS A GENERAL RULE", that doesn't mean your Churchill nodding dog needs to be in full working order or that your air freshener is still producing a pleasant odour of cinnamon and pine. Soz if someone has already mentioned this but CBA to read to the end of the post.

And, just found this, not sure it helps; Application of brakes of trailers

19. Where a trailer is drawn by a motor vehicle the driver (or in the case of a locomotive one of the persons employed in driving or tending the locomotive) shall be in a position readily to operate any brakes required by these Regulations to be fitted to the trailer as well as the brakes of the motor vehicle unless a person other than the driver is in a position and competent efficiently to apply the brakes of the trailer.
Provided that this regulation shall not apply to a trailer which—
(a)
in compliance with these Regulations, is fitted with brakes which automatically come into operation on the overrun of the trailer; or
(b)
which is a broken down vehicle being drawn, whether or not in consequence of a breakdown, in such a manner that it cannot be steered by its own steering gear.

What score do I get and do I gat a Gold star. Oh please sir!
Click to expand...

Very well thought answer so 9/10. I don't give 10 very easily
 
benjenbav said:
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the word of the law is as follows (I haven't checked):

"Loads not exceeding 750kg: trailer must have working brakes

Loads >750kg: trailer must be fitted with brakes."

It could be argued that:

1. The language used for the higher towing weights is distinguishable. If Parliament's intention was to require working brakes for loads >750kg, the same language would have been used for the lighter loads. Hence, on a proper construction, the only requirement for the higher load is that something that came out of a box marked brakes be bolted on to the frame.

2. A brake is a device that can be used to apply a retarding force. If it isn't functional, it's just some bits of metal. Hence, saying that a brake must be fitted is exactly the same as saying that a working brake must be fitted and the use of the word 'working' in the first expression is unnecessary.

Equally, I'm sure that bigplumbs doesn't hate me even though I'm a lawyer. In fairness, I do have that effect on people and so he probably would if he knew me. But, of course, expressing a hatred for the genus 'lawyer' whilst not necessarily hating individual lawyers shows that wordsmithery isn't just confined to the second-oldest profession. :encouragement:
Click to expand...

For a lawyer (note a possible insult there) you seem a nice chap. You should try being a Chartered Surveyor we are not liked much also

Also are Lawyers aloud to use smileys they could be ambiguous, cause confusion and lead to a law suit............ Kaching :)
 
Bigplumbs said:
For a lawyer (note a possible insult there) you seem a nice chap. You should try being a Chartered Surveyor we are not liked much also

Also are Lawyers aloud to use smileys they could be ambiguous, cause confusion and lead to a law suit............ Kaching :)
Click to expand...

They may be "allowed" unless they are Girls.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

ari
What is your lifejacket policy?
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
3K
Greg2
Greg2
C
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE - EIAPP CERTIFICATION
Replies
8
Views
384
Tranona
T
steved
Batteries......what would you do
Replies
3
Views
259
Refueler
Refueler
Refueler
Bow winch eye ...
2
Replies
20
Views
512
Refueler
Refueler
Halo
The Inside of my fuel tank after 20 years
Replies
1
Views
321
Refueler
Refueler

Share this page

Top