Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Unlicensed lorry appeal fails

3rd January 1969, Page 34
3rd January 1969
Page 34
Page 34, 3rd January 1969 — Unlicensed lorry appeal fails
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• A firm which used an unlicensed lorry on the road, lost its appeal before the Inner London Sessions Appeals Committee, on Friday, against a fine.and order to pay back duty.

Keane Transport (Kilburn) Ltd., of Malvern Mews, Kilburn, appealed against a fine of £50 and £2 costs and to pay £40 10s. back duty for using the lorry on the road without a vehicle excise licence.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook, counsel for the GLC, said that one of the firm's lorries was seen being driven in Kennington Road without a cur

ent excise licence. When the firm was inter viewed, its manager agreed it was their lorry

and carrying their materials and that they knew it was unlicensed. When told the company would be reported, the manager said that they had a block insurance and a few cover notes so that it was difficult to produce one at times when required. The annual duty on the lorry was £162 so according to when the last licence was taken out, the back duty amounted to £40 10s. The firm had one previous conviction, when in 1966 it was fined £20 and £2 costs for using an unlicensed lorry.

Mr. James Curtain, transport manager of the firm, said they had 21 vehicles and for some time the lorry in particular was used on a demolition site at Catford and did not go on the road, so did not have to be licensed. The lorry was then shifted to another demolition site in Kentish Town and before it was sent he intended to apply for the licence but there was the difficulty of cover notes. They had a block insurance which covered all their vehicles and only had three cover notes. They were not always accessible at particular times and the cover note had to be sent with the application for tax. The firm was now making arrangements to have separate cover notes for each vehicle so the difficulty would not arise again.

Questioned by Mr. Stanbrook, he agreed that he knew the lorry was unlicensed when he sent it out and contended that the firm was only liable for one month's tax. The firm was only obliged to keep driver's log sheets for three months and doubtless they had now been destroyed. He declared that the lorry was not on the road for the other three months, as claimed by the council.

Mr. R. E. Seaton, Chairman of the Committee, said they saw no reason to vary the order and the appeal would be dismissed and the firm would have to pay £10 10s. additional costs.

comments powered by Disqus