AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

RHA challenges applicant on lack of funds for maintenance

4th April 1975, Page 28
4th April 1975
Page 28
Page 28, 4th April 1975 — RHA challenges applicant on lack of funds for maintenance
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 previous failures with haulage companies and a pending liquidation would prejudice the chances of proper maintenance and repair through lack of funds. This was the basis of the objection made by the RHA in a case before the Eastern LA, Mr H. E. Robson, at Peterborough last week when a partnership, J. R. & D. Troughton of Wisbech, trading as Troughton Transport sought a new 0 licence for three vehicles and five trailers.

For the RHA, Mr C. R. Kaite said he would rely on the history of the partners when operating as directors of David Troughton Ltd and Allystar Haulage Ltd, both of which had failed.

In evidence, Mr David Troughton agreed that he had controlled David Troughton Ltd and said this company had been wound up by court order in 1971. He agreed that Allystar Haulage had been formed three months before the collapse of the Troughton business but did not comment on a suggestion that he had formed this when he saw the Troughton company failing.

Dealing with Allystar liquidation Mr Troughton said the matter was current and complex and he could not deal in detail with the total amount of money outstanding. He claimed that there were others behind the failed companies who had control of finance. Mr :Troughton disagreed with suggestions that company records had not been filed for Allystar Haulage and disputed a figure of £64,000 suggested as the amount of the failure of Allystar.

For the applicants, Mr K. Robinson said the liquidation was extremely involved and he felt an adjournment until this was resolved would be useful. This was refused. Dealing with the proposed setting up of Troughton Transport, Mr Robinson said it would use two vehicles and two trailers currently operated on an interim licence hut would need additional vehicles. The business was profitable and there were funds to guarantee proper maintenance. John Troughton was skilled and would take charge of maintenance. He added that Troughton had been in charge of a larger fleet at Allystar which had operated without major troubles.

After long submissions from both solicitors during which Mr Kaile opposed an adjournment and said it could take two years to clear the liquidation procedures, the LA said he would refuse the application. He felt it unsatisfactory for an interim to be allowed to go on and said he was not satisfied that proper repair and maintenance would be available.

The LA accepted that there were doubts about the actual controlling interest of former Troughton companies, but added that if further evidence of finance became available the applicants could apply again. He would also require evidence to show that the applicants were fit persons to hold a licence.


comments powered by Disqus