' Phantom driver'
Page 42
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The Transport Tribunal in a written judgment has given reasons for its dismissal of the appeal by Barnett and Graham Ltd. (CM February 7).
The appeal arose from action taken by the Northern LA after a public inquiry at which the appellant company was applying for a new B licence in respect of 10 vehicles, on an expired B licence. The LA informed the appellant of his intention to take into account the company's previous conduct when hearing the application on November 12 1968. He would also consider under Section 178 whether the appellant's B licences should be revoked, suspended or otherwise curtailed. At the inquiry evidence was given that drivers had been working excessive hours and that the appellant had concocted false drivers' records to cover up this irregularity.
When giving his oral decision at the end of the hearing, the LA stated his proposal to inflict a penalty of 12 months' suspension of four vehicles. In Applications and Decisions it was stated that a licence for six vehicles had been granted for 12 months "then 10 vehicles". In his written decision to the appellant, however, the LA made mention only of six vehicles. The Tribunal has decided that the proper construction of the action taken by the LA was that he granted the licence in respect of six vehicles and was announcing his intention of varying the licence by the addition to it of the other four vehicles al the end of the period of 12 months.
The Tribunal did not find the LA's decision in any respect harsh and subsequently dismissed the appeal.