AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Furniture Van Appeal Dismissed

1st November 1963
Page 15
Page 15, 1st November 1963 — Furniture Van Appeal Dismissed
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?

WHEN the Transport Tribunal ruled auainst an application by two successful respondents for costs against a Rugby furniture remover appellant, the managing director of the company, F. G. Rainbow Ltd., said he proposed to donate 20 guineas to the Cancer Research Fund as a mark of his sincerity.

F. G. Rainbow Ltd. was appealing on Tuesday against the refusal of the West Midland Licensing Authority to add a Luton van of 212tonsto its B licence to carry out furniture removals.

Presenting his company's case, Mr. Rainbow said that Rugby was expanding but there was no small furniture vehicle to carry small lots locally.

At the public inquiry, Mr. Rainbow said he had been unable to produce witnesses.

Mr. R. M. Yorke, for B.R.S. (Pickfords) Ltd. and W. G. Goddard and Son Ltd., said the appellant should have produced a list showing the jobs that could have been done had a smaller vehicle been available, and also given details of cases where a customer had been forced to put off a job because no small vehicle was available,

Giving the 'tribunal's judgment, Mr. G. D. Squibb, the president, said the application had to be viewed against the background of difficulty of obtaining customer evidence, which was perhaps less cogent than could usually be expected. Making all the allowances the Tribunal could, they thought that the L.A. was right to refuse the application. The evidence "was not sufficient to get the case on its feet ".

After the appeal had been dismissed, Mr. Yorke applied for costs because the appeal was "frivolous and vexatious ".

After Mr. Rainbow had pleaded his sincerity in appealing the Tribunal dismissed the application for costs.