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
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216 
Maintenance of C-licensed Vehicles to be Officially Investigated
Page 150
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
'THE maintenance of the C-licensed fleet of .Ditchburn's, Ltd., Sunderland, I furniture manufacturers, is to be officially investigated, the company were told by Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, Northern Licensing Authority, at Newcastle upon Tyne last week.
He adjourned a hearing called so that he could consider the company's case against his proposed suspension or revocation of their licences.
As reported in The Commercial Motor dated December 25, 1959, the company had been convicted at Leeds for offences concerning drivers' hours and records committed by Leeds Cabinet Works, Ltd., a subsidiary company.
Six prohibition notices for vehicles operated by the holding company and four of their subsidiaries had been issued.
Mr. J. M. Ditchburn, for Ditehburn's, said that their maintenance system had been tightened • up. The fleet of 35 vehicles was divided among the parent concern and eight subsidiaries. Each company operated as a separate entity and was responsible for its own transport.
He told Mr. Hanlon that the magistrates had taken the view that the company were not really to blame. The log sheets seemed to be in order, but drivers were " fiddling " for subsistence allowances. Means of control had been changed and there was unlikely to be further trouble.
Mrs. Ruth Dove, company secretary, admitted that, apart from occasional visits by Ditchburn's directors, there was no system for informing the parent company of drivers' convictions or the receipt of prohibition notices. Discipline was left to the managers of subsidiary companies.
Mr. Hanlon pointed out that the requirements regarding drivers' records and hours were for protection of the public. Convictions must be looked into, he added. Many of the company's vehicles had been on the road in a " shocking " condition and the board seemed unaware of the position. He would expect to see copies of any resolutions on the Matter passed by the board.