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 
No insurance—so others used licences
Page 44
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A SOUTH Gloucestershire haulier operated
vehicles without regard to the declared normal user and the licences issued had not been used by the company concerned. This was the view of Mr. J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon, Western Licensing Authority, when he called before him Carrybrac Haulage Ltd., of Stoke Gifford, in Bristol last week to consider giving a direction under Section 178 or 177.
The LA said Carrybrac Haulage held a carrier's licence for two vehicles which had never been used by Carrybrac.
Mr. John Drew, a director of the company, said: "We were only able to hire vehicles that would be insured by other people. We found it impossible to hire vehicles on an ordinary rental basis."
The LA: "Assuming that is all correct, it means that you cannot get cover to entitle you to operate lawfully as a haulier holding a haulier's licence. If I grant a licence to Jones, and Jones never uses the vehicle at all under the licence, but Smith, Brown and Robinson use vehicles from time to time using the licence discs I have issued to Jones, it is clear it has not been used under the licence at all. If anyone wants a licence they should come to me and not to you."
Mr. Samuel-Gibbon said a letter from his office to Mr. Drew six months previously asking for explanations of normal user irregularities, had never been answered. Mr. Drew: "We lost a lot of our records in a fire. It has been difficult for us."
Mr. Samuel-Gibbon said it was the clearest possible case of non-user of a licence. He revoked the licence under Section 178, but granted a stay of decision until November 3 after Mr. Drew gave notice of intention of appeal.