W. A. Glendinning Ltd —a sorry story
Page 24
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• "Mr W. A. Glendinning can fairly be described as a leading member of the road haulage industry. He is and has for some time been a member of the executive of the Road Haulage Association in the Northern traffic area. He is now the chairman of the Northern area of the RHA and the national chairman of the Transport Managers' Club. He is also a Justice of the Peace for the County of Durham. We mention these matters, not to pillory Mr Glendinning, but because they are relevant to the present case in that, as it seems to us, they may well account for the ignominious position in which he now finds himself. A businessman
cannot give a substantial amount of time to public service without detriment to his business unless he has thoroughly reliable subordinates to whom he can delegate the day-to-day running of the business."
This was the opinion of the Transport Tribunal in its written reasons on its decision to the operator's licence appeal by W. A. Glendinning Ltd, of Shotley Bridge, Consett (CM May 8). The Tribunal rejected the refusal of the Northern LA, Mr J. A. T. Hanlon, to grant Glendinning Ltd an operator's licence for 37 vehicles and 23 trailers with a margin of 10 vehicles and three trailers, and granted it a limited licence
for 18 months and for 18 vehicles and 11 trailers only. The limitation was imposed because the Tribunal felt that "the appellants will not be able to provide satisfactory facilities and arrangements for maintaining more vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition in the immediate future".
The Tribunal pointed out that the LA was still free to act under Section 69 (1) (c) of the Transport Act 1968, should he find the "intentions or expectations" of Mr Glens/inning not fulfilled. "Mr Glendinning must not look upon this licence as authority to carry on for another 18 months in the manner in which he has done in the past."
Outlining the reasons why the operator's licence was refused by the LA, the Tribunal said that the evidence relating to the maintenance of the Glendinning vehicles made "a very sorry story". However, referring to Section 64 (2) (d) of the Act, the Tribunal said there was greater difficulty in proving intentions for the future than happenings in the past. "It seems to us that the burden placed upon the applicant is not to prove each requirement beyond a reasonable doubt, but only to prove it on a balance of probabilities." It regarded the assessing of past conduct in respect of maintenance permissible when having regard to what would probably happen in the future.