1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184 
"Previous Conduct" Suspension Follows Variation Bid
Page 65
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
MANY hauliers did not appreciate the risk they ran in using vehicles in breach of their licences and it was difficult to convince them these were not trivial matters. Mr. W. P. James, the West Midland Licensing Authority, was told this at Birmingham on September 21 by Mr. Norman Carless, for G. Shephard, High Street, Quinton, who sought variations to A and contract A licences.
Mr. James said the application for substitution of vehicles involving a 4-ton increase in each case would normally have been dealt with in chambers, but he was required by Section 174(4)(b) of the 1960 Road Traffic Act to take Mr. Shep-. hard's previous conduct into account.
Referring to convictions at Birmingham magistrates' court on May 4, last, for using a C-licence vehicle for hire or reward and for a record offence, Mr. Carless submitted that at the time the Clicence vehicle was used it was replacing a broken-down vehicle. The applicant knew of Regulation. 15, but thought it could be put right in half-a-day. He succumbed to the temptation to use the C-licence vehicle. The record offence was outside his control; drivers were continually reminded of their duty to prepare log sheets properly. There had been no gain in vehicle strength or use for hire or reward to the detriment of other hauliers.
There was a difference in degree between using an unlicensed vehicle to
replace an authorized one, and its use as an additional vehicle, said Mr. James, but Regulation 15 was devised for the purpose. Mr. Shephard's assurance in the past carried little weight. He was personally ,warned on October 6, 1958, as to his future conduct and again on May 19, 1959, concerning illegal operation of two vehicles connected with a take-over application.
Mr. Shephard's record also included a warning for record offences on October 1, 1957, a conviction for two offences at Coventry on December 18, 1957, and one at Birmingham on December 19, 1958, added the Authority. He was satisfied that some penalty must be inflicted, and in granting the A-licence variation the existing vehicle would be deleted from October 1 and the larger one would not be added until November 1. The contract variation would be granted. The penalty was lenient, said Mr. James, for he was not satisfied that the applicant had the right attitude towards licensing.