AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Licence Revoked—No Redeeming Factors

12th October 1962
Page 9
Page 9, 12th October 1962 — Licence Revoked—No Redeeming Factors
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?

AFTER being granted an A licence in April, 1961, a haulage firm in Birmingham did not carry on business as a public carrier. At two subsequent applications, no indication was given that the vehicles were not being used and that the firm was not, in fact, trading.

The West Midland Licensing Authority. Mr. John Else, said this on Monday at an inquiry asking Babafast, Ltd., why its A licence should not be revoked or suspended. Mr. Else added that the company had no intention of using the premises in Summer Lane, Birmingham. given in the application as a centre of operations.

The Babafast shares were acquired in August this year by J. H. Hatfield and Sons, Ltd., of Ashton-under-Lyne. Mr. J. Backhouse, appearing for them, said his clients were aware that the company had not been trading when they took over. They started operations on August 20, and had continued trading since then.

Mr. Backhouse declared that, if the licence were revoked, customers would have to look elsewhere for the transport they had had since August.

A director of J. H. Hatfield and Sons. Mr. Frank Sincox, said the terms of the selling agreement were that his company should buy three new vehicles from the selling firm, Wilde and Bennett, Ltd., of Hadfield. The existing three were not roadworthy.

Since starting operations the vehicles licensed to carry glass, furniture, office equipment, building materials and electrical components had been earning £50 a week each Mr. Else told him: "1 cannot understand why you, should enter into this agreement with Wilde and Bennett. You were buying a licence."

In a written decision the next day the Authority said he had decided to revoke the A licence held by Babafast, Ltd.

He said he could find no redeeming or mitigating factors in the case. In their application for the licence and two subsequent variations Babafast had made statements of fact which were false and statements of intention or expectation which had not been fulfilled.

The company, he said, did not intend to carry on business as public carriers: did not trade from April, 1961, until August, 1962; and the company was advertised for sale in September, 1961. They had not operated from the declared base referred to in thcir applications of March and July, 1961, and May, 1962,