Disregard of the Law Must be
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Penalized : Lorry Withdrawn THE inter-change of drivers between one associated company and another amounts to a disregard for the law and there must be a penalty, said the West Midland Licensing Authority, Mr. W. P. James, at Birmingham last week, when he ordered that a lorry should be withdrawn from the A licence held by Moores Motor Services (Wombourne), Ltd., Wombourne, Staffs, the period of withdrawal to run from May 18 to July 31.
The concern were applying for a new A licence in respect of four vehicles, with a wider definition of normal user than was in the current licence, which they proposed to surrender. The Authority said that evidence in support did not justify the wide definition sought, and he adjourned the application for this to be amended. He indicated that if a satisfactory definition were proposed, he would grant the application.
Mr. G. H. P. Beames, for the British Transport Commission, objected to the proposed normal user on the application. The case had been twice previously adjourned and the Authority had called for reports concerning the alleged interchange, of drivers and the alleged 'breach of normal user by the company in which, it was said, F. Cliff and Don Everall had
a controlling interest.' • Not Deliberate
For the company, Mr. Norman Carless said that there had not been any deliberate flouting of the law. The trouble Was due to misapprehensions by the late Mr. Charles Butcher, general manager Until his death in 1958, who had been under the impression‘ that the Act of 1953, which abolished the 25-mile limit; had eased the other restrictions.
If Mr. Butcher had had the slightest idea that things were not in order, continued Mr. Carless, it could be fairly assumed that he would have come to the court with an application.
There had also been the mistaken view that drivers of the company could be interchanged with those of other concerns in which the same directors were interested.
Giving his decision, the Authority said that the normal user defined • in the present application was about as wide as it could be, True, it excluded household furniture removals and livestock, but apart from that it could be summarized as general trade in Great Britain. There was a wide discrepancy between that and the terms of the existing licence, for general goods, including household furniture removals, normally within 50 miles but for longer distances as required. The proposed definition was said to match what the company had been doing for some time.
"To say 'This is what we have been doing and it is what we propose to do in the future' will not take the case very far," said Mr. James. He added that the evidence did not justify the wide
definition asked for. In the circumstances, he could dismiss the application, but preferred to allow an adjournment for the definition to be revised.