R.H.A. Blamed for Haulier's Offences
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Mr. Hanlon Claims Operator was Misled : Licences Not to be Revoked .
IN announcing his decision last Friday not to revoke or suspend the B and special A licences of Arthur Sanderson, South End Farm, Great Broughton, Middlesbrough, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, Northern
Licensing Authority, blamedthe Road Haulage Association for part of Mr. Sanderson's difficulties. In a written judgment, he said:—
" In view of the surprising and disturbing disclosure that this haulier was advised by an Association upon whom he was entitled to rely for sound guidance in the conduct of his business, I am reluctant to take any drastic action against him for what I consider to be a flagrant disregard of the conditions of his licence.
" it is possible that some mistake or some misunderstanding, occurred between the licence holder and the R.H.A. representatives as to his intentions at the time. I would find great difficulty in accepting such an explanation in a future case, but in this case
take no further action with regard to this series of breaches of the B-licence conditions."
As reported in The Commercial Motor last week; Mr. Sanderson was called to show cause why his B licence for eight vehicles and his special A licences for five vehicles should not be revoked or suspended because of breaches or the conditions.
Worked For Merchants
Mr. Hanlon said in his written deciskin that Mr. Sanderson admitted at a public inquiry last year that from 1951 to 1954 he had been carrying fertilizers from Liverpool and Bridlington for two merchants to farms mainly in a radius of 25 miles of Stokesley. He did so under a licence authorizing the carriage of grain for another firm within 150 miles.
Twice he had been refused permission to transport fertilizer within a radius of 150 miles, "but in spite of those refusals," said Mr. Hanlon, " he did carry fertilizers from Bridlington and Liverpool and his takings in the year ending April, 1954, amounted to over £.1,500 for ,these two firms alone."
At last:week's inquiry, Mr. Sanderson stated that he honestly believed he was entitled to carry this fertilizer to farms in his area of 25 miles. He himself was a farmer holding eight acres and he thought that he was exempt under Section 1 (5) (c) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. He said that the R.H.A. had advised him that he could legally do this work.
Journeys Illegal
It was admitted that the carriage or the fertilizers was ordered and paid for by the merchants. "In those circumstances," said Mr. Hanlon, "I find that the whole of the journeys from Liverpool and Bridlington with fertilizers were illegal and in breach of the conditions of the licence."
He rejected the submission of Mr. Sanderson's solicitor that the work might have been done for or in connection with the business of agriculture n",
carried on by persons in the locality. The work was done for the merchants, who were not persons engaged in agriculture. Mr. Hanlon's reasons for coming to this conclusion were based on the decision of the Divisional Court in the case of Bruce versus Odell. Nevertheless. he proposed to take no action.
Mr. Sanderson had also been convicted at Stokesley, in April of this year. on 21 charges relating to carrying for hire or reward outside the conditions of the B licence, and various offences concerning drivers' hours and records. Mr. Hanlon said that as these were first convictions and Mr. Sanderson had taken action to prevent a recurrence, he would merely issue a severe warning as to the future conduct of the business.
At the inquiry the previous day, a court clerk had said that Mr. Sanderson was granted four special A licenceson May 1, 1954, and another on February 18 this year. On February 15 last a B licence for eight vehicles was renewed with effect from February 1.
Asked by Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, for Mr. Sanderson, whether any action was taken with regard to any alleged breach of conditions, the