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 
APPeah
16th March 1979, Page 43
16th March 1979
Page 43
Page 43, 16th March 1979
— APPeah
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Re your report of the West Midlands LA Arthur Crabtree in the matter of Bawling Bros, Birmingham Ltd and the GV9 issued to two of these vehicles: surely Mr Crabtree knows that even if we do disagree with the imposition of a GV9, there is no way in which we can appeal. There is just no allowance anywhere in the regulations for a formal appeal against a GV9. The only appeal that can be made is against the refusal to remove it on re-examination (GV9C), and even if this appeal is successful, the original GV9 remains on record.
PAUL W. BIGNELL, Chichester, Sussex.