Fuel offence penalty increased by tribunal
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The Transport Tribunal has increased the penalty imposed by the Western LA on A. R. Hiscox and Sons, of Frorne, Somerset, by ordering that four vehicles instead Of three should be deleted from the company's licence for its currency. The Tribunal's president, Mr G. D. Squibb, QC, said that the increase in the number of vehicles to be deleted was because of the time required for the appeal to be heard and this had effectively reduced the severity of the original penalty.
The licence, which specified nine vehicles, had been reduced following a Section 69 hearing which had considered one immediate GV9 and offences relating to the illegal use of paraffin instead of diesel fuel.
The firm had had to pay £50 to recover one of the three vehicles concerned from Customs and Excise and had been fined £90 with £10 costs by Frome magistrates for the offences.
Mr J. C. Harper, representing the company at the appeal this week, said that a new driver had, by mistake, filled the main fuel tank in the firm's yard with paraffin he had found in drums on the premises.
Subsequently, three vehicles had been filled with the unmarked paraffin and the offences were discovered. No profit had been derived from this action.
The offences had occurred, it was submitted, because the proprietor, Mr A. R. Hiscox, had been ill at the time and had been able to exercise little control over his employee's activities. Mr Hiscox fully admitted the offences but, Mr Harper submitted, although he was legally responsible he was not morally to blame.
The basis of the appeal against the severity of the penalty, said Mr Harper, was that although the LA was not obliged to take action under Section 69 it appeared that in this case he had felt compelled to impose a penalty in spite of the fact that the appellant had already been substantially fined by the magistrates.
The maintenance infringement was of secondary importance, said Mr Harper, and concerned an immediate GV9 placed on one vehicle because of a brake fault, which was subsequently found to be a design fault.
To overcome any maintenance difficulties or a recurrence of the fuel problem, a full-time transport manager and mechanic were now employed and new maintenance buildings had been erected.
Mr Harper said the company had an important contract which would be seriously jeopardized by the curtailment and he asked that . instead of the penalty, conditions' be imposed under Section 66 which would compel the company to always employ a full-time transport manager and mechanic.
Mr Squibb said that the Tribunal considered the decision of the LA to take some action under Section 69 was correct.
The Tribunal found it difficult to believe that the paraffin could have been put into the yard tank by mistake and felt the severity of the penalty to be justified as it took into account previous convictions for using a vehicle without an excise licence. Additional vehicles, added Mr Squibb, could always be hired to safeguard the important contract.
A second appeal was dismissed because the appellant, Mr J. E. Speig,ht, of Lincoln, wished to submit new evidence which had not been before the Eastern LA at the time of his refusal to grant a licence for one vehicle in possession and one vehicle to be acquired.
A third case was dismissed when the appellant, Anglia Surplus Trading (Cambridge) Ltd failed to appear before the Tribunal. The appeal had been against the decision of the Eastern LA to suspend one vehicle from the firm's licence for three months.