AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

You must have witnesses, LA tells applicant

17th February 1967
Page 38
Page 38, 17th February 1967 — You must have witnesses, LA tells applicant
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords : Business / Finance

MR. C. J. MACDONALD, Metropolitan deputy Licensing Authority, refused an application by Mr. J. Money, of York Rise, London, for two vehicles to carry building materials and road-making machinery last week because there were no supporting witnesses.

In evidence, Mr. Money submitted a letter from Lignacite Ltd., of Nazeing, who already employed one of his vehicles on a C-hiring licence and who did not wish to continue supplying the driver, as was necessary under this form of licence. Compactors Engineering Ltd., of Enfield, had also written to say that they would employ Mr. Money's vehicles and that the loads were of a special nature and invariably had a 2 or 3 ft. overhang.

Mr. R. Yorke, objecting for the Transport Holding Company, pointed out that this type of load fell within the scope of Special Types Orders and that the application's wording had not intimated this. He submitted that other firms would have objected if this had been known.

Mr. F. A. Fisher, for British Railways; pointed out that the vehicle notified in the application was 4 tons 10 cwt. but that in evidence Mr. Money had said that this vehicle had been replaced by another of 5 tons I cwt. In his submission this invalidated the application.

The applicant told the LA that only part of the work would involve overhang loads and that he had the specialist knowledge referred to by Compactors. Asked by the LA why he had made an A and a B application for these two vehicles, Mr. Money said that if the LA felt there had been sufficient objections to the granting of an A licence, he would ask that a B licence be granted for the vehicles to work for the two named customers.

Refusing the application, Mr. Macdonald said: "The applicant does not seem to have paid much attention to the letter we sent to him telling him about the evidence we would require." He said that with an opposed application witnesses were necessary and also that there had been no 'statement of extent of user.

Tags

Locations: London

comments powered by Disqus