• Home
• Used vehicles
• Product news
• Dealer news
• Compliance
• Buying advice
• Archive

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252

Mr. White Makes 28 Applications: No Licence at Present

Zoom page

1st June 1956

Page 79

Page 79, 1st June 1956 — Mr. White Makes 28 Applications: No Licence at Present

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?

Please select an option... Headline has errors Article text has errors Article is incomplete Submit

THE West Midland Licensing I Authority last week reserved his decision on 28 applications by Mr. G. E. White, Coventry Road, Birmingham. Hearings had earlier taken place on February 7 and March 7. At the later date the Authority adjourned the case until Mr. White gave an assurance that he would conform with traffic-court procedure.

The Authority said that this assurance was given in a letter dated March 17, and the case had been relisted for hearing. At the time of the adjournment, Mr. D. Grimsley, of White's Removals and Transport, Ltd., Great Lister Street, Birmingham, had been giving evidence when the Authority ruled that the applicant's cross examination should be ended.

Mr. White said last week that he wished to withdraw his first application, which was in process of being heard, and proceed with the fourth. The Authority would not allow this, and refused Mr. White permission to continue to cross-exdmine Mr. Grimsley.

Evidence in the first case, said the Authority, would determine his decision in the others. It was part of an Authority's duties to determine whether a case should be withdrawn or not.

Mr. White: "I don't think you have acted fairly."

The Authority: "If this case leaves you with any sense of grievance, you have every right to appeal."

Mr. D. E. Skelding appeared for White's Removals and Transport, Ltd., who objected with the British Transport Commission and six Birmingham operators. The objectors gave details about the availability of vehicles. All said that they had been able to cope with demands or had passed on orders to other contractors when this was not possible.

The Authority permitted the applicant to call an additional witness, Mrs. Irene Smith, Ash Crescent, Castle Bromwich, who had furniture removals done by Mr. White through subcontracting.

Mr. Skelding said that Mr. White had no licence and was using a list of "inquiries received" to try to retrieve one he had held earlier. He had accepted orders, not knowing whether or not they could be sub-contracted, or had refused them. In these instances there was no evidence that other operators had not done the work.

[Mr. White has lost two appeals to the Transport Tribunal for the restoration of his A licence. White's Removals and Transport. Ltd.. have been granted an injunction against Mr. White in respect of the name under which he traded.]