Buying new vehicle pending appeal was wrong Tribunal
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• It was not right for an operator to obtain the advantage of buying a new vehicle and running it pending an appeal rather than reapplying for a licence once his original application had been refused. This was the judgment of the Transport Tribunal this week when it dismissed the appeal of onevehicle operator Mr B. Fogarty of Blackburn against the decision of the North Western LA in refusing the application for a new licence.
For the appellant, Mr R. B. Farley said that Mr Fogarty had been granted a oneyear licence which expired in April 1972. A public inquiry was held in August but the LA was not satisfied with the condition of the vehicle or the maintenance arrangements and the hearing was adjourned until November by which time a further inspection had been carried out.
Mr Fogarty was unable to attend the November inquiry, however. He had been away on holiday and knew nothing of the inquiry until the evening before it was due to be held. He telephoned the clerk of the court, said Mr Farley, and said he would try to arrive at the hearing before 12 o'clock. He had no transport of his own, however, and could manage only to travel the 30 miles from Blackburn to Manchester by 1 o'clock, by which time the application had been refused.
Mr Farley submitted that the LA was right to refuse the application on the evidence before him but as the appellant had been unable to attend an adjournment should have been granted.
Mr Fogarty had bought a new vehicle after the inquiry and a proper maintenance contract had been arranged. In addition the old vehicle was used exclusively on site work while the new one was not. Mr Farley asked that the case be remitted to the LA.
Mr G. D. Squibb QC, president of the Tribunal, said that the applicant's one vehicle had attracted one GV9 with nine faults listed. The LA had heard a report from a vehicle examiner at the hearing which the appellant was unable to attend and this was very unsatisfactory. The appellant would have to apply again for a licence and satisfy the conditions of the 1968 Transport Act.