EXCESS OPERATION 'NOT DELIBERATE' -MR. HANLON A FTER hearing how delays of more
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
than a year in the determination of licence variation applications had seriously impeded the progress of a Tees-side haulage company, the Northern Licensing Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, decided not to take any licensing action against the company.
Mr. Hanlon was considering at an inquiry held at Durham at the request of the company—R.A.H. Transporters Ltd. of Darlington—whether to revoke or suspend its A licence for admittedly operating more long-length trailers than its licence authorized.
Mr. P. Kenny, for R.A.H., said that his client, during the recent series of longlength steel applications, had admitted operating three trailers in excess of 30 ft. —one more than the licence allowed—but the extra trailer had been used for carrying steel locally on collection and delivery.
Mr. R. A. Hunter, managing director of the company, said that R.A.H. had had one long-length trailer since before May, 1958. It had been used on a licence acquired from Scotts Grays. In 1961 the company had taken over a long-length unit from Blenheim Haulage—a company owned by himself and his wife. The vehicle had previously operated under a special A licence and during the conversion of the licence to open A, when an opportunity could have been taken to increase the weight of the trailers, the trailer weight was left as it was at 3/ tons.
After hearing evidence of how it was possible for the firm to operate its longlength trailers within the weight restriction specified on the licence, Mr. Kenny submitted that his client had not deliberately, fraudulently, maliciously, flagrantly and knowingly operated trailers in excess of the authorized weight. The purpose of the recent protracted variation applications had been to " draw a straight edge on the licence, by revising the weights of the trailers. In refusing the application, he said, the Authority had taken into account the previous conduct of the company. Any further action would only be doubling the penalty; R.A.H. had already purged its contempt.
Giving his decision, Mr. Hanlon referred to the net that had been cast on Tees-side as the result of a complaint by certain operators that long-length trailers were being used illegally. R.A.H. had clearly been caught up in that net, but he was satisfied that it had not operated in a deliberate and flagrant way to such an extent, having regard to all the circumstances, that he ought to take any licensing action against the company.