Trafficking in Special A Licences Alleged
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
'THE suggestion that there had been trafficking in special A .licences was made at Leeds last week when two 'haolage firms faced charges in connection with special A (articulated) vehicles,
Woodcocks Transport (Rotherham). Ltd., were accused of obtaining a special A licence by knowingly making a false statement to the Licensing Authority that two vehicles were assigned to them by S. Hughes (Hirers), Ltd.
. S. Hughes (Hirers), Ltd„ were accused of obtaining the variation of a special A licence by knowingly making a false statement to the Licensing Authority that the two vehicles authorized on the licence had been assigned to Woodcocks.
Hughes pleaded guilty. Woodcocks were found guilty. Each firm was fined £35, Woodcocks to pay the costs of the action_
Defaulted
Prosecuting for the Licensing Authority, Mr. E. Wurzal said that on May 5, 1959, Douglas Valley Finance Co., Ltd., of Wigan, entered into a hire-purchase agreement with a Mr. Hutchinson, of Wakefield, whereby they sold to him four goods vehicles, of which two were the subject of the charges. Hutchinson obtained special A licences for the two vehicles. He defaulted in his payments to the finance company who. about May,1960, Made arrangements with a company named Thompson Brothers (New Mill), Ltd., to get possession of the two vehicles.
They could not get licences for them because Hutchinson had purported to sell and assign the vehicles to Hughes. The vehicles never left Hutchinson, EIS was 'instanced . by the fact that Thompson's
were able to recover them for Douglas Valley Finance in May, 1960.
On August 6, 1959, Hutchinson applied to take the vehicles off his licence on assigning them to Hughes, but there was no charge befOre the court as the time limit for prosecution had expired.
Valuable Asset
On August 26 Hughes applied to take the vehicles off their special licence on assigning them to another firm, but the application was refused by the North Western Traffic Commissioners. Hughes at this time had a valuable asset in two articulated, expensive vehicles which they never got, for which they had paid Hutchinson £1,800. It was the suggestion of the prosecution that it was merely trafficking in special A licences.
On October 1, 1959. Woodcocks applied for a new special licence in respect of the two vehicles on the ground that they had been assigned to them by Hughes. A purported assignment was filed with the application, but Hughes had no v-ehicles to assign; they were still in the possession of Hutchinson. The Licensing Authority, not knowing the facts, granted Woodcocks a special A licence on which the vehicles and trailers were included.
£2,000 for Licences
The offence came to light when the finance company_ on default by Hutchinson, began to move in May, 1960. Apparently Woodcocks paid Hughes £2,000. in effect for the licences only. Since then Woodcocks had attempted to put other vehicles on to the licence and to assign them, hilt the Authority had refused to accept those applications.