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 
these off on an instalment basis.
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Later in this hearing Mr John Backhouse, representing the partnership. asked that, as his clients were unprepared for the questions concerning financial resources, the inquiry should be held in private. Later in the written decision Mr Else refused the request for the hearing to be discussed in camera on the grounds that it was not likely to be in the interest of the public.
Mr J. Badderley also made an application at the time for one vehicle which would be maintained at the Stoke-on-Trent base where he claimed there were facilities to maintain up to 40 vehicles.
After hearing all the evidence the LA said he was far from satisfied that the overall finances would be adequate and therefore he adjourned the hearing until August 31.
At this inquiry it was revealed that Mr Patten had relinquished his position as shareholder and director of Haulage Contractors (Ellerton) Ltd, and would be in no way associated with the company. His shares had been divided between the two remaining partners, Mr Hurst and Miss Stubbs. and Mr Badderley had also joined the partnership. Mr Hurst and Miss Stubbs would each have 2100 shares and Mr Badderley 800.
For the company, Mr Backhouse told the LA that, the application by the partnership was to be withdrawn and an interim application by the new company made in its place. The 0 licences held by W. Smith (Cobridge) Ltd and Smith's Devon and Cornwall Servicing Ltd. which had been called under Section 69 of the Transport Act 1968, were to be surrendered.
Giving evidence, Mr D. W. Smith, who had also been called to the LA under Section 69, said that since he had received letters from the Licensing Authority on August 12 and 19 there had been considerable changes in his affairs. He had arranged for a garage to carry out maintenance work on his one vehicle and would also inspect it himself at regular intervals. Proper records of maintenance would also be kept. No action was taken against Mr Smith.
The application by Mr Badderley was granted after he told the LA that he would have his vehicle maintained at a reputable garage and would also carry out maintenance work himself.
Mr Badderley also gave evidence in support, of the application by Haulage Contractors (Ellerton) Ltd. He told the LA that already plans had been made to build maintenance premises which would include pits and all the necessary tools and equipment. One mechanic would be employed who would assist Mr Badderley to carry out visual vehicle inspection.
After hearing the evidence concerning the financial resources of the company, Mr Else indicated that he was not satisfied that the firm was in a position to operate a fleet of the size envisaged.