norance no excuse, says LA
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
1. Haulage, of Eyemouth, was repriby the Scottish LA, Mr. A. B. Birnie, urgh on Monday for breach of regularolving the operation of a Contract A vithout licence and use of a B licence g to a company bought over but not • ansferred.
Dmpany was applying for a Contract A for one vehicle of 84 tons to be I for John Prentice and Co., grain it. It was also called to show cause g unauthorized use of a vehicle or prior to the issue of a licence.
Juice it was stated that the company into the contract on September 1 at KI minimum of £2,000 a year. Some after the application had been lodged pany was advised by the LA's office fee should be £2,500 instead of and on this understanding it assumed licence had been granted. The hirer to increase payment to f2,500 -1 and use of the Contract A vehicle I. D. Haulage continued to use this was made clear on a visit of an
• that this was illegal and on January company was officially warned by at it was not entitled to use the t discontinued its use immediately. The B-licensed vehicles in use had been acquired along with the business of another haulier. The company had used that vehicle which was licensed, although not to J. D. Haulage.
Mr. J. B T. Loudon, for the applicant, made it clear that the company had acted throughout in ignorance of the legal requirements, had consulted a legal firm not accustomed to traffic court work and that the partners were themselves new to road haulage work. He also contended that there had been undue delay in dealing with the licence application and that that had contributed to the situation.
Giving his decision, Mr. Birnie said that he was dealing with an application which had taken a very long time to be dealt with due to pressure of work. That delay was extraordinary and some more explicit advice might have been given to the applicant. But it had been agreed that vehicles had been used illegally, with the mitigation plea that the applicant was unfamiliar with the law.
There was contradictory evidence on some aspects and it may have been that the applicant had misunderstood the official language. but, if it did not understand fully, it should have been concerned and have sought precise information as to the position. He had decided to take a charitable view but could not let the matter go without some penalty. He would grant the licence but not from current date. It would apply from April 1. He would not accept innocence or ignorance as a future justification and warned the company to become familiar with the requirements of the regulations.