I write having recently encountered a report wherein a company had been fined following a diesel spillage, and a lack of adequate work had been done to remediate the contamination.
In sentencing the company, the judge in this instance noted that the business had a large profit margin, and that therefore the fine must ‘hit home’.
It seems to me that the rule of law does not fit all.
I do not wish to pass comment on who is right or wrong in this case, nor on the outcome. Instead, I want to focus on the enormous fine that was given to the company in question.
Many of the less reputable operators across this industry, with a history of encounters with DVSA or the Traffic Commissioners, would never receive such a hefty fine.
Why should a company, that may well have operated for years with good repute to accrue its profit margin, be more culpable than a company with a lower profit margin?
Those less reputable operators will have escaped such severe fines because the law and regulators know that they do not have the funds to pay them.
I’m sure the past history of these companies shows the same forever repeated pattern as a result.
Companies should not be judged on their profit margin when it comes to punitive fines. Is that the cost for operating correctly for many years against those that do not?
John Bagnall
Swadlincote
