Revoked 0-licence decision stands
Page 23
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AFTER his 0-licence had been revoked and he had been banned from holding a similar licence in any traffic area for two years by the Northern LA, a Cockermouth haulier, Mr Dennis Clemetson, had his appeal against this decision turned down by the Transport Tribunal sitting in London on Tuesday. The reasons will be made known in writing later.
Appearing for the appellant, Mr Peter Kenworthy-Browne asked the Tribunal to consider that the penalty imposed had been too harsh.
Mr Clemetson had a licence for two vehicles and three trailers. He had previously held a B-licence under a pre-1968 arrangement and had applied for an 0-licence after the 1968 Act had been passed.
This application had been refused in 1970 on the grounds that he was not a fit and proper person to hold an 0licence. In 1971 he had again applied and had been granted a licence for one year. This was renewed for live years in 1972.
It was not until 1974 that he had incurred two convictions. One was for a vehicle fault which had occurred when he omitted to tighten wheel nuts after changing tyres. The other was for not keeping a current record after he had failed to record his starting time in his log book. At a public inquiry one of his vehicles was then suspended for six months as a disciplinary measure.
Mr Kenworthy-Browne asked that the Tribunal should accept that this was also a harsh decision; Mr Clemetson had maintained an exemplary record for three years.
After that, however, Mr Clemetson had tried ,to alter the suspension of the vehicle with the LA's office from a new unit which he had just bought to a shunting vehicle which he owned and, despite the failure of this, had sought to obtain the grant of a licence for one vehicle from the Scottish LA.
The vehicle originally suspended in the Northern traffic area was the subject of the licence granted in Scotland.
He was under the impression that had he specified the shunting vehicle to the Scottish LA all would have been well. He saw no subterfuge in using the new vehicle in its place.
All but two of nine offences of using the vehicle unlawfully of which he was later convicted, referred to this vehicle.