AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Tribunal dismisses two out of three appeals

28th July 1972, Page 26
28th July 1972
Page 26
Page 26, 28th July 1972 — Tribunal dismisses two out of three appeals
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• Two out of three appeals were unsuccessful when they were heard by the Transport Tribunal this week. The one successful appeal concerned P. J. O'Donnell (Construction) Ltd which had been refused a new licence by the East Midland LA for its Nottingham base.

Mr K. Schiemann, for the company, said that the LA had refused the application for four vehicles on the grounds that there were insufficient financial resources and that maintenance facilities and arrangements were unsatisfactory. Mr Schiemann submitted that the judgment of the LA was totally wrong concerning the company's finances and this was confirmed by statements of accounts for the year ended January 1972 which were not available at the time of the inquiry but which the Tribunal allowed to be presented.

The LA had seen that profits had dropped by half for the year ended January 1971 from the previous year but in fact for the year ended January 1972 profits had doubled again. Current liabilities at £33,000 exceeded current assets of £19,000 but at no time did they exceed the secured overdraft and this fact had not been taken into account.

One immediate and three delayed GV9s were admitted on the Nottingham vehicles but it was suggested by Mr Schiemann that were it not for the fact that the LA was not satisfied with the firm's finances a licence in some form would have been granted. Mr Schiemann concluded by saying that the future had to be looked at otherwise a licence could never be granted because of past mishaps.

A licence for two years was granted by the Tribunal. Reasons for their decision are to be given at a later date.

Second appeal The second appeal did not succeed after the appellant, Mr A. N. Roxby, of Helton le Hole, Durham, submitted a letter to the Tribunal rather than appear in person. The appeal was against the decision of the Northern LA not to grant a licence for one vehicle to Mr Roxby for maintenance reasons. In his letter, Mr Roxby said that a garage would now service his vehicle and enclosed a letter from the garage confirming this. He also said that without the licence the livelihood of himself and his family would be lost. The evidence was not accepted by the Tribunal, however, which suggested that the appellant should apply to the LA again.

Third appeal The third appeal concerned Mr M. J. Mahoney, of Merthyr Tydfil, whose application to renew his licence for two vehicles had been refused by the Soi Wales LA.

Mr P. Kenworthy-Browne, for Mahoney, amended the notice of appeal draw attention to the fact that the LA IA applying conditions to the renew application which should only apply tc Section 69 inquiry and that he took it account matters on whidh no prior not had been given to the appellant.

Mr Kenworthy-Browne said a licer had been granted for. one year only in M 1971 and during the year each vehicle h been issued with a GV9 (a third vehicle h been surrendered). At the renewal inqui it had been established that Mr Mahon had expected a local garage to send for ea vehicle when it was time for servicing, h this had not been done and the vehicles h been maintained by Mr Mahoney.

It was submitted at the appeal that t much emphasis had been put on the GV as if the inquiry had been called unc Section 69. In addition, had prior warni been given that they were to have be considered then Mr Mahoney could ha prepared his case more effectively. I Mahoney had been badly shocked by t LA's refusal and proper maintenan arrangements had now been made. A gra for a limited period was asked for, hlthou it was disputed by the Tribunal whether short-term grant, in the circumstances, w allowed under the Act since the appella was not a new operator.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss t appeal, however, saying that it was not • to the garage to send for vehicles f maintenance; that was the operato responsibility. It was further added that t appellant seemed to have completely t wrong attitude to his responsibilities and was felt the LA was quite justified in 1 decision.


comments powered by Disqus