Forms Were Wrong— Assignment Postponed
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IdE necessity of the greatest care in eating with forms was again illustrated at Stockton on Tees, last week, when the Northern Licensing Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, refused to grant a special A licence assignment to Gardner Bros. (Langley 3.4onr), Ltd., until February 11 because their application form was received a day late and was undated.
Mr_ Hanlon said the application form was received on January 22, undated, but the date of delivery was given as January 21. If the vehicle were delivered before the application were made by the assignee the licence lapsed as soon as it left the hands of the assignor, Teesside Carriers, Ltd. Thus Gardner's bad had no right to use it.
Consequently they were not entitled to a grant as of right or to use the lorry until a grant was made because they were in the same position as an A-licence holder whose licence had expired before there was a" renewal.
Mr. R. Gardner, a director, said the omission of the date was an oversight.
had been informed only the previous day that he was using the vehicle unlawfully, although it was not used until after the application form had been sent in.
Mr. W. E. Wagstaffe, secretary of Teesside Carriers, said the vehicle was an eight-wheeler of 7 tons 17 cwt. unladen, and was originally on an A licence. It was agreed to sell it to Gardner's if it could be transferred to special A. This was done and the assignment forms sent in on January 19. The vehicle was delivered on January 21.
There was no doubt, said Mr. Hanlon, that the i'ehicle had been operated without a licence, but he was satisfied that it was a genuine mistake on Gardner's part. But this was no excuse, Teesside Carriers were in no way to blame. The grant wtsuld be suspended for five days,