1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136 
Tribunal upholds revocation
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE REVOCATION of an operator's licence held by Richard Benney (Transport) Ltd, a Helston haulier, by the deputy Western LA was upheld by the Transport Tribunal last week.
At a public inquiry in October 1973 the appellants appeared before the LA after 12 prohibitions and convictions on three occasions relating to drivers' hours, overloading, defective tyres and failure to keep records. The licence was sub sequently curtailed by one vehicle from November 1, 1973.
The Tribunal heard that two more prohibitions were recorded in November 1973 and another in June 1974. There was a conviction in April 1974 relating to hours and records; in May and July 1974 there were convictions for unauthorised use of a vehicle and in July another conviction relating to drivers' records. At another public inquiry in October last year, the deputy LA decided to revoke the licence.
The Tribunal stated, in its written decision, that the prohibitions issued in November 1973 and June 1974 were not in themselves particularly serious. The deputy LA — very properly in the view of the Tribunal — had regard to the fact that these prohibitions had been preceded by 12 other prohibitions and the conviction for defective tyres, so that the overall picture of the appellants' standard of maintenance was not good. It appeared, said the Tribunal, that the deputy LA paid more regard to the two convictions for the unauthorized use, in making his decision.
The Tribunal says it is not prepared to disagree with the deputy LA who had been unimpressed by evidence of mitigation supplied by the company's managing director.