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 
LA exercised right to vary fleet size
Page 108
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Van Hee Transport
111 THE APPEAL of Van Hee Transport Ltd to the Transport Tribunal against the decision of the North Eastern Licensing Authority in granting an operator's licence for a lesser number of vehicles than had been applied for, has been dismissed.
Towards the end of 1987 the company applied for a new licence for 44 vehicles and 40 trailers in possession and two vehicles to be acquired. Attached to the application was a list of 14 court appearances involving 23 convictions between 20 Oct 1982 and 3 Nov 1987.
The application was heard by a public inquiry, and in his decision the LA said he had decided to give the applicant once again the opportunity to demonstrate his good intentions, but in view of doubts about his fitness to hold the licence and reinforce the importance of complying with the law grant it for 38 vehicles and 38 trailers only, and to last for 12 months only.
At the appeal, it was stated for the company that it had not been a proper case for the LA to exercise his discretion given under Section 64(3) of the Transport Act 1968 having regard to two main complaints: • The LA failing to take into account the policy of replacing two-axle, I 6-tonne rigid vehicles with which it was difficult to avoid overloading; • The new training programme; • Absence of convictions since November 1987; • A maintenance inspection on 23 May 1988 found the vehicles in very good condition.
The second main complaint was that before exercising his discretion so as to impose a penalty the LA should have made inquiries on the appellant's financial viability.
'So far as the first complaint is concerned," says the Tribunal, "we are not satisfied that the Licensing Authority failed to have regard to any of these matters."
Turning to the second complaint, the Tribunal says it seems clear the LA did intend to hit the appellant in its pocket with the wide discretion allowed under Section 64(3) of the Transport Act 1968 and had exercised it properly, The LA had available evidence from Mr Van Hee as to financial standing of the appellant.