AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

A Pungent Warning by Mr. Muir

11th March 1966, Page 52
11th March 1966
Page 52
Page 52, 11th March 1966 — A Pungent Warning by Mr. Muir
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?

Keywords :

ROAD hauliers availing themselves of the services of "consultants" to assist in licensing applications or the purchase of a business are warned of the possible consequences by the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, Mr. D. I. R. Muir, in a recent written decision. Forwarding Transport Services (London) Ltd., a clearing house, applied for two vehicles on A licence to carry "furniture and furniture removals, meat and frozen foods" with a normal user of 200 miles (COMMERCIAL MOTOR, February 4). The vehicles concerned had, apparently, been carrying meat and frozen foods mainly for F.M.C. (Meat) Ltd. and for Henry W. Peabody and Co. of London Ltd., licensed in the name of Forwarding Transport Ltd., which in 1964 took over the furniture removals business of H. and J. Bastick.

A Mr. John Thomas Luderman is a director of the applicant company. "According to Mr. Luderman", writes Mr. Muir, "this extraordinary situation arose because he employed a so-called transport consultant and signed whatever documents this individual placed before him for signature without bothering to read them. Thus Mr. Luderman signed the takeover agreement with H. and J. Bastick and the application form in connection therewith as director of Forwarding Transport Ltd., a company which did not exist at the relevant time and does not exist now. He says that he did not know that H. and J. Bastick specialized in furniture and that he had undertaken to serve the Bastick customers."

Mr. Muir continues: "It is difficult to believe that anyone could be so foolish, but unfortunately in the absence of the 'consultant' it is impossible to test the truth of Mr. Luderman's evidence. I shall grant the licence with the amended declaration of normal user ('meat and frozen foods within 200 miles') but the licence will not issue until May 1, 1966. Mr. Luderman cannot expect to get away unpenalized for his comprehensive breaches of the law, even if one can accept that he acted foolishly rather than wilfully. I take also into account his statement that the vehicles have been off the road ever since he learned from his solicitors of the enormity of his offences." I quote the sting in the tail of Mr. Muir's decision without comment: "I hope this case will serve as a warning to hauliers in general and in particular to those who find difficulty in coping with licensing matters and the filling in of forms. My office is always willing to help, but we do not aim at providing free legal service. Applicants must themselves accept the responsibility for the accuracy of statements made in their applications and the reliability of written evidence tendered in support.

"Before deciding to act on the advice of a person without professional qualifications, applicants should satisfy themselves as to the bona fides of the adviser. Anyone can describe himself as a transport consultant. Some consultants accept a limited amount of responsibility by corresponding with this office on their client's behalf.

"Although . . . the responsibility for the accuracy of statements made in application forms and the reliability of supporting evidence remains with the applicant himself, it stands to reason that an adviser or consultant who prefers to remain in the shadows must be suspect. I have dealt leniently with Mr. Luderman, but after this warning, which I hope will be given wide publicity, I shall not deal so leniently again with anyone who claims that 'he left it all to the consultant' ". in a traffic court in a dual capacity?

The publicity given to this matter is strange; after more than 30 years of traffic courts it is late in the day for arguments on this subject.

The recognized practice for British Railways or any large haulier is for an advocate, whether legally qualified or not, to conduct the case and for him to call a witness if rebuttal evidence is considered necessary. But however desirable this may seem, is this an indispensable feature of traffic court procedure?

Any decision taken on how British Railways presents its objections must apply to everyone else. If a small haulier objector attends a public inquiry without an advocate, is he to be told that he cannot act in a dual capacity? Is he to be told that the case will be adjourned for him to be properly represented? Unless some flexibility is shown he may be left to ponder on his rights as an objector.

An unrepresented applicant is often questioned by the LA as to the reasons for his application and later invited to make a submission. No exception has been taken to this dual role in the past, and it seems wrong now to focus attention on the objector. The rights of applicants and objectors alike must not be subordinated to court procedure.


comments powered by Disqus