AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

FRANK ADMISSIONS AT SHEFFIELD INQUIRY

2nd July 1965, Page 30
2nd July 1965
Page 30
Page 30, 2nd July 1965 — FRANK ADMISSIONS AT SHEFFIELD INQUIRY
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?

AST week at Sheffield, not only did LA an applicant freely admit carrying coal without a licence, but also said he had been prosecuted for so doing. The certified figures submitted included details of the unauthorized carryings. The applicant was Mr. B. Thorpe, of Thorpe Helsey, Rotherham, applying to add conditions to his B licence: "Coal on behalf of Ryecroft Transport Services Ltd. for the NCB within 15 miles of Hoyland Post Office". Objectors were C. Braham and Son of Chapeltown, represented by Mr. M. H. Waite, and British Railways, for whom Mr. D. Braun appeared. The hearing was adjourned.

Mr. Thorpe, who was not represented, had carried 1,368 tons of coal on his vehicle before obtaining short-term licences covering the period February 26 to August 31 this year, on two supporting letters from Ryecroft Transport. In answer to Mr. Braun he disclosed that the conditions of his substantive licence were not being used and his carryings were confined to coal between collieries within about two miles of each other.

Cross-examined by Mr. Waite on the amount of coal carried before and after authority was granted, the applicant said it was a 24-hour-a-day job and at tithes he employed another driver. Mr. Waite called his attention to the fact that Braham and Son did the work prior to Thorpe being set on, whereas their carryings had declined to the degree that they were not now being asked to carry. The radius of 15 miles had been asked for at the instigation of Ryecroft Transport. but there was no witness from that company to support the application.

Mr. J. E. Randolph, the Yorkshire deputy Licensing Authority, commenting on the absence of customer support and to Mr. Thorpe not being represented, adjourned the hearing until next month, saying that if he refused the application it would likely be renewed with customer support and the objectors would be inconvenienced by having to start all over again.


comments powered by Disqus