Tribunal adjourns 0 appeal
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• An operator's licence appeal by Dennis Clemetson was adjourned by the Transport Tribunal last week because it felt it had insufficient evidence available on which to base its decision. The Tribunal will apply to Mr J. A. T. Hanlon, the Northern LA—on whose refusal to grant an 0 licence the appeal was lodged—for details of GV9s considered by him at the public inquiry. If after 14 days of this information being received Mr T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, Mr Clemetson's representative, does not apply to have the appeal reopened then the Tribunal will give its decision on the evidence already heard.
Mr Wardlaw said that Mr Clemetson, an owner-driver, of Cockermouth. had his application for two vehicles and trailers in possession and one vehicle and low-loader trailer to be acquired, refused by Mr Hanlon at an inquiry at Cockermouth on March 10. Mr Wardlaw said that the two vehicles in possession were on a limited B carrier's licence, although one had not been in use since last November and was consequently deleted from the licence by the LA under Section 177 of the Road Traffic Act 1960. This was quite wrong .of the LA. complained Mr Wardlaw, because he assumed it to be off the road because of an unsatisfactory condition. This was incorrect, as it was merely being repaired and in this state he doubted whether the LA had the power to delete the vehicle from the licence.
Mr Wardlaw said he thought the Tribunal should know that about two months ago Mr Clemetson had been convicted at Leyland magistrates' court for contravening the Construction and Use Regulations by using a trailer with a defective coupling and a vehicle with a faulty tyre. He had been fined a total of E60 and disqualified from driving for six months, although he had appealed against the conviction and was now waiting for the hearing to be heard at Lancashire Quarter Sessions. The Tribunal later decided this matter could have no effect on its decision because it was only convictions recorded in the three years preceding a licence application that were relevant and this case had occurred some months afterwards.
Mr Wardlaw claimed the LA had been satisfied with Mr Clemetson's maintenance arrangements, although Mr Hopkins, of the Transport Tribunal, raised some doubts. He asked if it was satisfactory to have a vehicle regularly inspected once a month at a garage in Preston when the vehicle's base was in Cockermouth, some 120 miles away. Mr Wardlaw claimed the important matter was that the arrangements had been made and that the distance between the garage and base was irrelevant.