Total lack of evidence' oses A-licence bid
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
11 An A licence application on behalf of K. nd A. Transport, Swindon, for one 5-ton an, to be acquired, to carry furniture and ousehold goods and goods for Reed Paper iroup, of Thatcham, Berks, any distance, fas rejected through lack of supporting vidence at a Devizes public inquiry on 4onday.
The application was made by Mr. Albert Villiam Giles, who told the Licensing Auhority, Mr. J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon, that he names G. A. Giles and J. S. Slade given a the application as the partners in K. and k. Transport, were his wife and son-in-law, .nd he was authorized to speak for them.
Mr. Giles said he had been encouraged ni people io move furniture and he could ilso gei plenty of work at the Reed facory.
The LA: "You say you can get work rom Reeds. Do you mean you or the )artners?" Mr. Giles: "I have worked for teeds for about 15 years."
The LA: "You sold the whole of your )usiness, didn't you?"—"Yes." Mr. Giles said he sold the business in September, 1965, to Mr. Gray (one of the objectors to the present application). He produced a list of names of people who had wanted furniture moved and said he had sub-contracted the work out by getting other people to do it. When he was running his business he had done several removals, but the biggest part of his work was with Reed.
Asked if he had any evidence from Reed, Mr. Giles said: "No, I haven't. The Reed Paper Group would not support the application, but they did support Mr. Gray when he took over from me.
"I had a letter saying they would be prepared to give him work. He has never sent a vehicle there since he took over. They will not support any new application."
Mr. McGregor Johnson appeared for seven objectors—Pickfords Ltd., A. Woodford Ltd., W. J. Phillips and Sons, F. Gray and Sons. C. Goodenough and Sons, A. E. Bridgeman, Hughes and Marriott Ltd. He produced a document and asked Mr. Giles if his signature was upon it. When Mr. Giles agreed, Mr. Johnson began reading a clause in which an undertaking was given not to set up a similar business, in partnership or otherwise, for a period of five years.
He was interrupted by the LA, who remarked: "Mr. Giles is not represented and I have, in effect, with one hand to act as advocate for him."
Replying to Mr. Johnson, Mr. Giles agreed that other firms had been able to do all the work he had found and he had no witness or letter of support from Reeds.
Addressing the LA, Mr. Johnson said it was not an application which could properly be granted. All the work Mr. Giles said he had obtained had been done by other hauliers. There was no evidence from Reeds. "There is a total lack of evidence to support an application for an A licence in the terms asked for—or, indeed, in any terms," he said.
Mr. D. Harding, appearing for the British Railways Board: "I must agree with those last words."
Mr. Samuel-Gibbon said that in his view both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Harding were right in their comments. Mr. SamuelGibbon added that he must have evidence that people wanted the applicants' services, and this had not been provided.
"My attention has been drawn to a document which you entered into when you sold your business. That has had nothing to do with this refusal, but it is a matter which might have come into it in different circumstances. I cannot grant the application made for Mrs. Giles and your son-in-law because you haven't given me enough evidence on which I can do so."