Knutsford is not ‘closed’ to HGV’s. I call in there there quite regularly and, certainly N/B there are still about 12 or so bays. Not sure about ‘overnighting’ though. I think that since Moto acquired Poplar 2000, they would rather push the trucks up the road to Poplar in order that the paying guests in the Travel Lodge don’t come down in the morning complaining that they’ve had their sleep distrurbed. 
As regards the tacho analysis, most of this is done automatically by computer and the software simply churns out the results. Where this falls down is in the manner in which ‘driving’ is recorded. Stopping at, junctions, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, etc, whilst still ‘legally’ classed a driving, will not show as ‘driving’ on an automated analysis. Which would explain the dicrepancy in times.
I’ve recently mentioned elsewhere that, stuck in a traffic jam, I exceeded 4 1/2 hours to reach somewhere to stop and recorded the fact on the back of the chart. Similarly, when the analysis came back, the ‘infringement’ was for an ‘incorrect’ manual entry. 
It was interesting to read about the new digital tachos recording 2 minutes driving when a vehicle is only moved a short distance. I was talking to someone recently who had fallen foul of this feature when, having returned to the yard several minutes within 4 1/2 driving, he then did the usual things. Call in to the office, move out of someone’s way, filled the tank up, filled the other tank up, and then moved it again to park up, etc, etc, etc, only to later find that all these minor vehicle movements had amounted to an additional 20+ minutes driving. However, I’m sure that if the total distance travelled in that (recorded) period were examined, then it would be so little that one could have walked further.
When companies set up these systems, and many of them have some merit, what they fail to appreciate is that ‘technology is blind’. It only fulfills the function that it has been instructed to do. If a company is intending to use analysis in relation to disciplining employees (or even rewarding them) then they need to ‘work with’ their analysis provider to ensure that software churning out infringements really are ‘infringements’ and there may be times when a manual analysis might be required, and when they find out how much that costs each time… 
I would suggest that the most appropriate manner in which to pursue this would be to implement the Grievance Procedure. They might then realize that the may have to re-think the policy.
Just imagine the following scenario at an Employment Tribunal where someone from the company providing the analysis has been called.:-
Q. Did you analyse this chart which you say indicates infringements?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you carry out that analysis?
A. I placed it in an (Acme Turborotator) and it provided me with a printed result.
Q. And how do you know that the result is accurate?
A. Because the people who sold me the system told me it was accurate.
Q. So, in other words, you didn’t actually analyse the chart did you?
A. No.
Q. But your company has put its name to a document, which may be accurate, or may not be accurate, which has resulted in the dismissal of an employee. Is that a satisfactory set of circumstances?
A. No.