Vehicles repossessed—no grant
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BECAUSE the vehicles had been repossessed, two applications by E. G. Gillum, of Leominster, were refused by the West Midland LA, Mr. J. Else, in Worcester, last week.
Mr. Gillum, who did not attend the inquiry, was applying for a new A licence for three vehicles. There were seven objectors. Mr. Else had been informed that the first of the three vehicles had been repossessed by the hire purchase company, as had the second vehicle which was at present under a B licence to Mr. Gillum in partnership with his brother, Mr. I. H. Gillum. The third vehicle was to be acquired.
Since the applicant had not appeared and evidence indicated that two vehicles were not in the possession or ownership of the applicant, Mr. Else refused the application. He said he would ask his offite to take up the question of action under Section 177 of the Road Traffic Act in respect of the contract vehicles owned by the partnership which had been repossessed.
When considering Gillum's application to continue his B licence and to increase the weight of the vehicle, Mr. Else said that not only was there no one present to support the application but that it was within his knowledge that the vehicle with which it was sought to replace the existing one had been repossessed. Additionally, he had received a letter from J. L. Hinton and Sons Ltd., the only company named in the licence conditions, saying that it did not support the application.
The LA concluded: "There is an enforcement history which I would undoubtedly have taken into account if it had been necessary".