More Evidence Needed— Application Refused A IMED at modernizing the company's
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
fleet, an application by F. and K. Transport Ltd., Celtic, for a variation of its A licence was refused by the North Western deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. A. H. Jolliffe, at Preston last week.
The applicant wanted to substitute three artics. for two rigid units with flat trailers. Mr. G. P. Crowe, for the applicant, said that the Only difference in the carrying capacity of the two sets of vehicles was 1 ton. Articulation had many advantages and the tendency was :for. hauliers to change their rigid outfits. • Several letters from customers were produced; but no witnesses were called. • • , Mr. A. Jolly, for the B.T.C., considered it essential that -customer 'witnesses be produced . in a case -of this type when the applicant did not want to substitute
"like for like". • • ' " A haulier should not have to prove need when he only wanted a new type of vehicle," said Mr. Crowe. •
The deputy, Authority said that more evidence should have been produced.