AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

R. and C. Transport Appeal Dismissed by Tribunal

30th July 1965, Page 29
30th July 1965
Page 29
Page 29, 30th July 1965 — R. and C. Transport Appeal Dismissed by Tribunal
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?

AN appeal by R. and C. Transport and Engineering Co. was dismissed by the Transport Tribunal in London on Tuesday. The company was contesting a decision of the Metropolitan Licensing ,Authority, who refused to vary the conditions of seven B-licensed vehicles to allow them to carry general goods within a radius of 75 miles from Welling, Kent.

Miss E. Havers, for the appellants, said the vehicles had operated on three different sets of conditions, carrying principally tor the South Eastern Gas Board. I the end the LA had made a limited ant on January 28 in respect of named customers, but had not allowed the grant to come into effect until May 1.

The suspension. said Miss Havers, was the LA's mark of disapproval of part of the evidence given by a partner in the firm. Mr. N. P. Cuthbert. The evidence was of certain notes he had made regarding attempts to get sub-contracting from British Road Services.

Miss Havers said the appeal was based on two grounds. First, that the LA should not have taken the position he

did over the notes and should not have delayed the grant—and secondly, that there should have been„.a...grant of general goods.

It was conceded, however, that it was impossible to justify general goods within a 75-mile radius, but there was evidence that the LA should have granted general goods within a more limited area. They now asked for general goods within a 30-mile radius.

In his decision the LA had said that Mr. Cuthbert had not told the exact truth about his notes. Miss Havers claimed that it had never been stated that Mr. Cuthbert's evidence was wrong. All that was said was that his notes, which were never evidence and were never intended to be evidence, were not his original notes.

Respondents were the Transport Holding Company and British Railways Board.

In dismissing the appeal. the Tribunal president, Mr. G. D. Squibb, said the reasons would be given in writing later.


comments powered by Disqus