Davis Group Must Cut Activities
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A R. MUIR said that by his decision, the Davis group, of which C. Bristow, All Ltd., were members, had purged their offence. He intended, however, that they should permanently be deprived of the use of the 33 vehicles on their revoked A licence and that they should curtail their activities accordingly. His intention would have to be taken into account, he added, in dealing with all future applications by the group for additional vehicles.
In his written decision, the Licensing Authority mealier] that, following the rejection of Bristow's appeal to the Transport Tribunal, they had suffered the toss of 47 vehicles for only five days. C. Bristow, Ltd., with 83 vehicles on licence, were part of the Davis‘ group of more than 300 vehicles. It was fair that Bristow's, as the lafgest company within the group, should bear the penalty for past misdeeds: he was certain that it would be borne by the group as a whole. Referring to counsel's invitation to consider that Bristow's proved illegal gain might not have been equivalent to more than seven or eight large goods vehicles, the Licensing Authority said that spare tonnage was the surest way to a customer's heart. Bristow's had that tonnage and had reaped the benefit, both in capacity and good will. He had considered the probable effects of his decision on Bristow's customers, whose difficulty in finding transport service of the same high quality he accepted. Nevertheless, he was satisfied that there was in the Metropolitan Traffic Area a comparatively small but adequate surplus of A-licensed vehicles offering suitable facilities which could take care of any demand likely to be thrown on it " as the result of the severest possible penalty I can inflict on the applicant." He found _that, in the affairs of three subsidiary companies, H.A.W. Transport, Ltd., J. Bennett (Transport), Ltd., and Tozers Transport, Ltd., there was prima facie evidence that each had made or procured to be made false statements or false declarations of intention on application forms. He also found that the fraud was perpetrated by some person or persons acting for the Davis group as a whole. In these cases,' however, he would take no action, but would visit the penalty on Br[stow's.
Temptation and Stupidity
Addressing the Licensing Authority on behalf of Bristow's, Mr. C. R. Beddington had invited him to regard the weight offences that had already been dealt with, both at a public inquiry and as an appeal before the Transport Tribunal, as the result of temptation and stupidity rather than deliberate policy. The variations might well' have been granted if the applications had been made in the normal manner. Since the autumn of 1958, Mr. Sally Davis had assumed responsibility for all licensing matters concerning the group of companies, and he was assisted by a retired detective inspector of police. Sufficient penalty had already been inflicted by the rejection of the appeal, said Mr. Beddington. He asked the Licensing Authority to consider the difficulties of Bristow's customers if the licences were not renewed, as well as the hardship which was bound to be inflicted on some 100 employees. Mr. S. Davis said that he was unable to meet customers' requirements and that,