AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

New licence despite failures

17th March 1988, Page 24
17th March 1988
Page 24
Page 24, 17th March 1988 — New licence despite failures
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?

• A haulier whose previous two businesses went into liquidation has won a new licence in his own name.

Barry Parker, who used to run Riverside Haulage and Winchum Transport and Warehousing, was granted the licence by North Western Licensing Authority Martin Albu last week when Albu considered the application with a Department of Transportappointed financial assessor.

The new licence is registered in the name of B P Transport, of Hawarden in Deeside, and covers eight vehicles and four trailers.

Riverside Haulage, which had operated 21 vehicles, was put into voluntary liquidation after its main customer had failed to meet invoices for 270,000 following an insurance dispute. Riverside's liabilities were thought to be up to 270,000, and Parker believed the assets totalled 290,000.

B P Transport had been set up in February 1986. It supplied vehicles to Hawarden Sheeting, which had its own licence. Accounts for the year to April 1987 showed a turnover in 14 months of 2245,000 with a nett profit of nearly 250,000. Projections for the current year showed a turn over of 2239,000, with nett assets and profit increasing.

Hawarden Sheeting had supplied the drivers initially, but after being asked for a large amount of money in wages, their names, were transferred to Parker although Hawarden Sheeting still gave them their daily instructions. Parker was paying VAT monthly because of problems in the past Granting a licence, Albu said there were no financial grounds for rejecting the application. He had been told that Parker was acting as an agent for Hawarden Sheeting. That company was not licensed to operate the number of vehicles it was apparently using, but, it was not for the present public inquiry to determine the legality of what was going on.


comments powered by Disqus