:onfusion over two firms' onvictions'
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Confusion concerning two Glasgowsed companies resulted in both being led under Section 69 by the Scottish LA. he of the cases was not proceeded with, wever, when it was established that the deince related only to one of the npanies present.
The firms, W. and J. Welsh and J. Welsh, d been called because of court avictions, but the LA, Mr A. B. Birnie, mitted that there had been some afusion as to which of the two firms had :eived the convictions. It was established court, however, that all convictions acerned W. and J. Welsh and the hearing atinued against this company alone.
Mr L. G. Murray, representing Welsh, d convictions had not been listed beeen February 1970 and June 1972, when application for a licence had been made, ;ause all of these offences occurred before issue of the licence. It was also claimed it two convictions in 1972 were minor, e being concerned with a tyre tread and one for the use of a prohibited vehicle. None of the convictions or prohibitions involved danger to the public, claimed Mr Murray.
Mr Murray also maintained that although there had been two GV9s these had resulted from some 25 spot checks. The two GV9s, moreover, compared with 20 notices that had been considered at a previous hearing.
Mr Birnie, in his decision, said that he had not been aware at the last hearing that there had been so many convictions. Eight vehicles had been removed then. He took a very serious view of the use of an unauthorized vehicle and said that at the best there had been a very definite slackness by a firm which had been shown exemplary patience by him in the past. He thought, however, that it would be wrong to take too serious a view and he therefore curtailed the four-vehicle licence by one vehicle for four months.