Firm Ignored Warnings, says LA
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Eastern deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. J. Gazdar, said that Norfolk and District Films Transport Ltd., nad ignored two warnings concerning operations outside their normal user, when he reserved his decision at a Section 178 inquiry at Cambridge on Tuesday.
The proceedings arose out of two applications by G. Jarrett Ltd. (an associated company) at Norwich last year when A licence bids for 17 vehicles, against the surrender of A and B licences held by Norfolk Films, were refused.
Unlawful operations were referred to by Mr. Gazdar in his written decision which followed that inquiry, and he had then stated his intention of calling the present hearing.
Mr. A. W. Eades, for Norfolk Films, said that no definition of abnormal user was recognized. The Transport Tribunal had not laid down any specific percentage. Return load traffic, in any event, was excluded. When Mr. G. Whatling, a principal director, had acquired the business he had been advised by accountants who had never heard of normal user. Mr. Whatling was in haulage when normal user was of no account. On his return to haulage in 1960, he should have sought qualified advice.
As regards a warning letter from the LA in 1964, said Mr. Eades, this had been misunderstood. His clients thought it referred exclusively to regulations concerning temporary substitutions and hiring allowances.
Mr. Eades said that £1,685 worth of removals work allegedly carried out after the LA's warning was an overestimate. A fairer figure would be £1,100. And this, he suggested, in relation to a turnover of £27,000, was not unreasonable.
Mr. Gazdar said his records indicated that three of the A-licensed vehicles had now been sold, yet their discs had not been returned. Also his records showed that one vehicle was recorded on A and B licences. Mr. Eades said the two vehicles on B licence were of little use, and the A-licence discs would be returned.
After evidence by Mr. Williams, a chartered accountant, who explained the reason for a discrepency in the accounting figures submitted at an earlier inquiry, Mr. Whatling and Mr. R. C. Snelling, transport manager, both gave assurances that they would adhere strictly to licensing requirements in the future.