Vehicle Deleted from Woman Haulier's Licence
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FOR not adhering to a statement of intention and substituting a vehicle without permission, the Metropolitan Licencing Authority, Mr. D. I. R. Muir, on Tuesday removed a vehicle from a two-vehicle A licence of Paynes Transport, Acton.
He had called upon the proprietress, Miss Patricia Payne, to show cause why her licence should not be revoked, curtailed or suspended under section 178 (1)(d) of the 1960 Road Traffic Act.
Mr. M. Corley, for Miss Payne, said that his client had come before the court in a contrite frame of mind, and gave as one of the reasons for the inquiry, lack of advice. He recalled that at a previous section 178 inquiry Miss Payne had stated that a Mr. Claydon had had nothing to do with the business (The Commercial Motor, October 26, 1962).
Giving evidence, Miss Payne said that Mr. Claydon merely helped her in the office and saw to repairs to the vehicles. He had no financial interest in the business.
Asked about an erroneous statement made at a previous hearing, Miss Payne said; "I did it because I needed a licence
to run the vehicles, otherwise they could not be put on the road."
Asked by Mr. Muir if Mr. Claydon advised her on licensing Miss Payne said that in a sense this was so.
Mr. Muir: " Do you consider Mr. Claydon gives you good advice? ". Miss Payne replied that he did, to her knowledge. Mr. Muir remarked that a person who had been convicted of offenes in connection with carriers' licences and "deliberately contravened everything to do with a licence" was not a person to help Miss Payne with her licence.
Asked about the substitution of vehicles and change of base, Miss Payne said that one of the vehicles broke down in Wales. This was the last she had seen of it. She received a cheque from Abergavenny, as the vehicle was to go for scrap. She had since substituted another vehicle. Mr. Muir pointed out that within the period of a year the vehicle had been substituted five times. All this time it had not been taxed. Asked if this was so, Miss Payne replied: " suppose so ".
She said that the change of base was because previous premises had ceased to be available.
When Mr. Sidney G. Claydon was questioned by the L.A., he said that Miss Payne had no responsibility for his record. He had not, he said, had a lot of luck in haulage and it was time he "packed it up". •Asked by Mr. Muir if Paynes Transport was a cover for him, Mr. Claydon replied: "Definitely not ".
After Mr. Corley had submitted that the false statement of intention had been made "in a spirit of panic ", Mr. Muir said that he proposed removing a vehicle from the licence with effect from January 18, 1965. At the samz time he refused a short-term application.