1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219 
Transport Tribunal remits 'unsatisfactory case' to LA
Page 58
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A Suffolk haulier, Mr C. C. Fairhead, claimed at the Transport Tribunal on Wednesday that vehicle examiners sent to inspect his lorry were "just out to cause mischief." And he added: "They went round banging my lorry about 50 times. If you have to do that to find what is wrong then you don't know your job. But this is what happens when you put into the hands of bureaucrats the power over the ordinary lives of the people."
Mr Fairhead questioned the evidence of the examiners which -gave a completely false impression" of his premises and his equipment. Mr Fairhead was appealing against the decision of the Eastern deputy LA to revoke his licence for one vehicle. On asking on whether he could calla witness at the appeal, he was told that this should have been done at the earlier public inquiry.
However, Mr Fairhead complained that on the date set down for the hearing the LA did not &rive. There was no explanation or apology but the case was subsequently heard in his absence.
President of the Tribunal. Mr G. D. Squibb, QC, decided to remit the case back to the LA for rehearing. He did not think the procedures taken at the earlier hearings had been satisfactory.
A second appeal on Wednesday was partially successful although in fact had little effect because the appellant, Mr E. J. Hamilton, had already suffered the penalty ordered by the South Eastern deputy LA.
Mr Hamilton, a Southampton haulier, was licensed for five vehicles and one trailer, two of the vehicles being specified. The decision of the deputy LA, under Section 69, and following the issue of one GV9 and one defect notice was to curtail the licence for 14 days by four vehicles — with effect from February L The Tribunal decided that Mr Hamilton should have had only two vehicles curtailed for a fortnight.