AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Former illegal operator wins grant

18th November 1966
Page 45
Page 45, 18th November 1966 — Former illegal operator wins grant
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?

IF the applicant had been a haulier in the full sense of the term he would have inflicted severe penalties, Mr. J. Else, the West Midland Licensing Authority, said at Birmingham on Monday.

Miss E. Havers, for the applicant company Newtown Engineering and Construction Co. (Birmingham) Ltd., explained that it wished to alter its B-licence application to read: (a) Three tractors and six trailers— machinery and equipment of Clyde Hopkins Fabrication Ltd., and on behalf of the licensee, Clyde Hopkins Ltd., Clyde Hopkins Fabrications Ltd., and Jay. Bee Engineering Ltd., where they are engaged in the installation or removal and reassembly of machinery and equipment within 200 miles; (b) One van and one drop-sided vehicle—equipment for Clyde Hopkins Ltd., Clyde Hopkins Fabrications Ltd., and Jay Bee Engineering Ltd.

She told the LA that Clyde Hopkins Ltd., designers of factories, had started in 1959 and Clyde Hopkins Fabrications, manufacturers of factory equipment, a year later. In 1964 Mr. R. J. Hopkins, managing director of all four companies, had purchased Newtown Engineering for the removal and installation of machinery and the following year formed Jay Bee Engineering for the erection of plant. Newtown had been transporting for its three associated companies on C licence until last May when an enforcement officer had informed it that it was running illegally.

Giving evidence, Mr. Hopkins said that the parent company now had an annual turnover of Elm. He explained that when they took over Newtown, the firm had been doing similar work, i.e. moving and installing machinery using C-licensed vehicles. "Do you have any knowledge of licensing regulations," Miss Havers asked the witness. "None", he replied.

Mr. J. Foley Egginton, objecting on behalf of Pickfords Ltd., Morris Transport Co. Ltd., Male and Son (Pensnett) Ltd., Star Roadways Ltd. and Wrekin Roadways Ltd., was assured by Mr. F. Skidmore, director of Clyde Hopkins Fabrications that outside hauliers were getting a fair share of its increased haulage business. Mr. Foley Egginton then told the LA, that in view of the new conditions of the application, the objections would be withdrawn.

The LA asked Mr. Hopkins whether he would make a declaration of intention to the effect that he would not allow the transport earnings to exceed 20 per cent of Newtown's total earnings during the currency of the licence. This, in addition to the conditions of the licence, said the LA, was to ensure that the company did not enter the haulage field.

"What does give me cause for anxiety", said Mr. Else, "is how far I should ignore the previous conduct of the applicant." He felt the interests of justice would be served if he made a grant in terms of the amended application and deferred the grant in respect of one of the tractive units for three months.