What happens when operators don't turn up
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE QUESTION of what action a Licensing Authority should take when an operator fails to turn up for a disciplinary inquiry was raised in two appeals before the Transport Tribunal in London last week.
A Goole operator, Mr J. Patterson, 5 Main Street, Gowdall, Snaith, had his 0 licence for three vehicles and two trailers revoked by the Yorkshire deputy LA, Mr J. F. Moody, in these circumstances.
Mr Patterson told the Tribunal he had written to the LA explaining the reasons for non-attendance, which were because his wife, after having a baby, had to return to hospital because of complications. A friend came in to look after the baby and he had to turn his office into a bedroom. All his papers were put into boxes and the letters concerning the public inquiry got mislaid and he completely forgot about it.
Tribunal president Mr G. D. Squibb, QC, pointed out that the case was first listed for hearing on April 25 and again on May 14.
Mr Patterson said he found the letters referring to both dates in a box and could not recall receiving them. He admitted his signature appeared on recorded delivery slips. He did not think his licence would have been revoked in any event as he felt the offences were relatively trivial.
Mr Squibb replied that the Tribunal did not regard a failure to keep maintenance records and a conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle, as trivial. With some reluctance the case would be remitted back; the appellant was largely the author of his own misfortunes and would be well advised to provide a proper system of office management.
On the same day P. and G. Transport Services (1972), c/ o Shawsgrove Ltd, 115 Powke Lane, Cradley Heath, appealed against a one-month suspension of their one-vehicle 0 licence by the West Midland LA, Mr A. A. Crabtree.
Mr G. Rogers, proprietor, said he was ill and could not attend the public inquiry; he had tried to contact the LA's office for a postponement, without success.
In reply to questions by the president, Mr Rogers agreed a medical certificate produced was dated the same day as the inquiry. He had been taken ill the night before and was not able to leave the house. When he got the medical certificate two days later he asked the doctor to back-date it.
He had applied for a second vehicle and had attended two inquiries before this, but the licence was suspended without giving him a chance to put his case. The second vehicle was in possession and had stood for 10 months.
The president said it appeared the LA had had some difficulty with the appellant in the past and the Tribunal were not surprised he had considered as contempt the failure to appear. As a medical certificate had been produced the best course was to remit the case back.