'Uncertified' earnings queried

23rd September 1966, Page 77

23rd September 1966

Page 77

Page 77, 23rd September 1966 — 'Uncertified' earnings queried

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

AHAULIER admitted at a public inquiry in Birmingham on Tuesday that he had filled in his own approximate figures of the earnings of his two B-licence vehicles on an accountant's certificate form which had been signed by his accountant who, at that stage, had not examined the books.

Mr. F. R. Hewitt, of Pelsall, Walsall, applied for one new artic not exceeding 71 tons on A licence with a normal user of plastics, goods, steel, steel fabrications and sections, machinery and building materials for London, Kent and Liverpool areas. British Railways and BRS objected.

On a submission by Mr. H. Simpson for BRS the case was adjourned for the applicant to provide certified figures of earnings from customers named in the conditions of his B licence. The West Midland deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. R. Hall, said he would require, at the next hearing, an explanation by his accountant of his conduct.

Mr. Hall said that at a previous hearing he had asked for the qualifications of Mr. Hewitt's accountant, but this information had still not been provided. Mr. N. Carless, for the applicant, suggested that the accountant had no qualifications as such.

Mr. Hewitt said that putting his own figures on the accountant's certificate was the result of a misunderstanding. Since then his accountant had examined the books and a proper certificate was now produced. He pointed out that his accountant's figures were accepted by the Inland Revenue and that the man, who was the secretary of a Walsall company, negotiated with the tax authorities on his behalf.

Mr. Simpson said the evidence showed Mr. Hewitt had dropped a great deal of the traffic he had originally carried and had replaced tippers with artics. The difference in the gross earnings originally submitted of £8,250 and those which had now been handed in was marked. The deputy LA was being asked to accept that the original gross figure was wrong and that it should have been £6,400. Evidence of two witnesses showed that Mr. Hewitt had carried traffic for which he was not authorized.

The applicant said that this was the third time he had been to court in two years to try and get an extra vehicle. He did not wish the matter to be adjourned because he

had to keep on turning down customers, which would adversely affect his business.

The vehicle applied for was already in his possession and Mr. Hall refused a request to substitute it for one of the two vehicles already on B licence.