No answer for earnings discrepancy
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Figures submitted in support of a new A-licence application referred to work given to a clearing house and passed on to the applicant and anybody's name could have been used, said the Northern deputy LA, Mr. J. A. Baldwin, during the re-hearing of the application by W. Armstrong (Westerhope) Ltd., Birtley, for six vehicles, in Newcastle this week.
The original application had been heard by the LA on April 19 but referred back by the Transport Trubunal because, said Mr. G. N. Robson for Armstrong, the LA had taken into account a report received from the Metropolitan traffic area and the Tribunal felt the applicant should be given an opportunity to answer it (CM July 26 1968).
In June 1967 the LA had deleted the Armstrong vehicles from its licence under Section 177 and on October 19 the deputy LA had granted a short-term licence (CM October 26 1967) to carry on the business, but it had not been taken up. When a further short-term was refused in January 1968 the substantive licence application was submitted.
Customer witnesses could not be asked to attend again, said Mr. Robson, but a letter had been sent from Osram GEC Ltd., that it still supported the application.
Mr. Baldwin showed Mr. J. W. Edwards, Armstrong managing director, a copy of a letter sent by his office on September 11 1968 to all customers detailed on the schedule of Armstrong's earnings submitted at the original hearing. With each letter, asking whether it had employed Armstrong, J. W. Edwards (Haulage) Co. Ltd., London, the clearing house owned by Mr. Edwards which had gone into liquidation in March 1968, or N. Raith Ltd., went an extract of earnings from that customer. The earnings from J. C. Toogood Ltd. were given as £3,771 6s 3d but in reply that company had said it had passed work amounting to £599 to Raith and nothing to the other two companies.
Mr. Edwards said information for the schedule had been supplied by Mr. C. M. Graydon, a previous director, when he was acting depot manager in Birtley, and that he could offer no explanation for the discrepancy.
Regarding the change of base, the vehicles had been moved to London for proper maintenance supervision but had continued doing the same traffic, said Mr. Edwards. However, he now intended personally to supervise the business at Birtley. He said he had no foreknowledge of the Metropolitan report regarding unauthorized use in December 1967, and no proceedings had been taken. One Edwards (Haulage) vehicle had been under contract and he had thought it expired in November 1968, not 1967. Another vehicle, one that had been deleted from Armstrong's licence, had been used in an emergency when a hired vehicle failed to appear.
He had not produced financial and employees' records requested by the LA's office in its letter of September 6 because, said Mr. Edwards, he felt a further letter dated September 19 had superseded it.
The deputy LA reserved his decision.