AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Licence for Clemence

10th December 1987
Page 22
Page 22, 10th December 1987 — Licence for Clemence
Close
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?

• New north-western licensing authority Martin Albu has granted a new licence to a company formed by the managing director of the nowliquidated Paul Clemence Transport Services.

Custom Speed of NewtonLe-Willows had applied for a new national licence for four vehicles and two trailers. Mike Mackey, for the company, said Paul Clemence Transport had had its licence revoked in January 1986 on maintenance grounds, and a new licence was issued for 12 months. That licence was not renewed as Paul Clemence Transport ceased trading and the new company was formed.

Vehicle examiner Alan Singleton said that since June 1984 the two companies had accumulated 14 prohibitions, most of an immediate and serious nature.

Managing director Paul Clemence said that Paul Clemence Transport had gone into liquidation in November 1986 because of bad debts. He admitted that Custom Speed had operated vehicles without a licence, but said he had thought the licence application was going through. He had not received a recorded delivery letter saying the LA was not prepared to grant an interim licence as he was on holiday at the time, and he had injected £7,000 into Custom Speed. There were overdraft facilities of .26,000 which he had personally guaranteed. The vehicles and equipment had been purchased from the liquidator of Paul Clemence Transport.

Custom Speed was a much smaller operation, said Clemence. It was working for Dunlops and S & W Garages of Atherton so there were no problems over credit control, and arrangements had been made with the Freight Transport Association to oversee vehicle maintenance.

Granting a licence for one year, Albu said that someone who knowingly and persistently broke the law over a period could be said not to be of good repute, but he was prepared to allow the company go on operating if it continued to take steps to improve maintenance — but warned that it would be in serious difficulties if there were further prohibitions.


comments powered by Disqus