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
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240 
Contract Applications Refused
Page 75
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A HAULAGE • contractor heard him1—k. self described as "not a fit and proper person to be in the industry," when ha appeared before the South Wales Licensing Authority at -Cardiff last week.The L.A., Mr. Ronald Jackson, told Mr. Glyn Day (of the firm of G. Day and Sons, Ltd., of High Street, Heolycyw, near Bridgend, Glamorgan),.thaVhe i,vas a disgrace to the industry. Mr.: Jackson refused both DaY's appliCatibris, for contract .1ilk licences. Mr. Jackson explained that he had called Day before him because he wanted to satisfy himself whether or not Day was a fit and proper person to have a licence.
A Ministry of Transport senior traffic inspector. Mr. Stanley James Carnfield, stated that Day had .repeated convictions over the past 12 months.. It was because of the seriousness of these that he had asked Mr. Jackson to see Day, Mr. Carnfield added that Day had been examined by him and also in a previous traffic court, and the advice given to Day appeared to have been. totally ignored.
On May 17, 1961, Day had been con, • yicted of operating an unlicensed vehicle. Mr. Camfield saw him after he received another conviction for operating an unlicensed vehicle, and for exhibiting a licence which did not belong to him with intent to deceive. While that was in abeyance, Day appeared at a public inquiry where he was given certain advice by Mr. Jackson.
On June 12. Mr. Caulfield saw Day again, after he had been convicted of operating without a licence. In this instance, he had manufactured a disc himself and put it on the windscreen There was also another conviction for had maintenance of his vehicle. Day, said Mr. Canfield, had openly admitted all the offences.
Day stated in evidence that,. in the first instance, he had bought another man's business. The licence was still in the previous owner's name, although he had applied for the change-over. The next offence, he said, was when he was still running a business for the former owner. When his driver was stopped, he said he was working for Day and he was actually employed by him. There was a licence on the vehicle.
On another occasion, he had applied for a contract A licence which was sent bock to him for signature. No mention was made that he would have to come to the court and, after waiting for three
weeks, he went ahead and used the Vehicle, thinking that everything was all right.
Mr. Jackson commented: "Licensing does not mean very much to you does it?"—" Of course it does, sir."
Day added that he had no intention to deceive. "1 put a form in, but nObody said anything to me that I would not be granted a licence. I had taxed the vehicle. and insured it. I had been in touch with the Ministry, but they would not give me any information. I have always had my other applications through in a flash."
Mr. Jackson said he had warned Day before what he thought of operators who treated the traffic laws with conterript.
I warned you what would happen if you came before me again.
"In my opinion you are not a fit and proper person to be in the industry. You are a disgrace to it. I will refuse_both these El pp I ica ti Ons."