McPhee's Guilty of Fraud: Three Vehicles Suspended
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AFTER eight months, decision has been given in the case of McPhee's (Newcastle), Ltd., Newcastle upon Tyne, by Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, Northern Licensing Authority, who, in a long judgment, accuses the company of taking part in a fraud, and orders the suspension of three vehicles for two months.
The company had been called upon to show why their licence should not be revoked or suspended when, in November, 1958, it came to Mr. Hanlon's notice that they had been operating a number of vehicles ar greater weights than that declared by them when the company applied for special A licences. Whilst five vehicles were originally involved, the inquiry and subsequent investigations mainly concerned three Guy Invincible vehicles, which had been declared at weights in the region of 51 tons, but were found to be about 7+ tons.
Mr. Hanlon recalls that the secretary and traffic manager of McPhee's had given evidence to the effect that the late Mr. McPhee, as managing director, was solely responsible for dealing with K. and B. Motors, of Newcastle, who had supplied the vehicles.
"Did not Know the Charge" "For some reason." he comments, " the company seem to have taken the view that there was no need for them to show how the discrepancies in weights occurred—it was for the Licensing Authority to prove how they occurred." The nature of the case had been discussed and explained at length over and over again, but the company persisted that they did not know what the charge against them was. • Dealing specifically with the history of one of the vehicles, Mr. Hanlon said that an Invincible No. LIR 944—cab and chassis—had been delivered by the manufacturers to K. and, B. Motors, but it was clear that "some other vehicle" was presented to the weighbridge. It had a different chassis number, but bore the registration number LIR 944. No Guy with the chassis number declared had then been produced.
Never Owned Vehicle Mr. Hanlon points out that Linzgarth Transport, in September, 1957, applied to have vehicle LJR 944 specified on their special A licence, and this had been done, but Linzgarth were never in possession of it—" indeed, that vehicle had not then left the Guy works."
A Mr. McLaughlin—an ex-employee cif K. and B. Motors—had, on the same day, applied for a special A licence for vehicle LIR 944 and, at the same time. the lorry was removed from Linzprth's licence. The declared weight of the vehicle was 5 tons 6 cwt. "Mr. McLaughlin never owned that vehicle," continues Mr. Hanlon.
The presentmatters had arisen as a result of an application by McPhee's to have the vehicle specified on a licence assigned as a unit by Mr. McLaughlin.
A26 "This was a clear case of trafficking in a licence—outside the terms of the 1953 Act and outside the principles established since the beginning of the licensing system." Mr. Hanlon observes.
He says he is satisfied that from the beginning McPhee's knew perfectly well what was alleged. Criticizing the company, , he continues: "They have deliberately stood back throughout this case and have said they did not know why the case had been brought. Now that Mr. McPhee is dead, those responsible — the secretary and traffic manager— merely said. 'We know nothing about it — Mr. McPhee did it all.'
The whole thing was a fraud in which the company took part, and I find as a fact that all the three vehicles must have been operated at over 7 tons each from the time they were put on the ,road.“ There was no evidence to show that alterations had been made subsequently.
Attitude of Defiance" Mr. Hanlon says that, however fraudulent it was, the Transport Tribunal had decided that there might have been an impression that this sort of thing could he done lawfully. He had seriously considered whether the attitude of defiance" adopted by the present officers of the company did not merit revocation of the licences of all five vehiclesinvolved. Inquiries into the case had been extensive and great difficulty had been encountered in obtaining information.
Having regard to the Tribune's decision in the cases of T. A. Metcalfe and J. R. Hudson. he had decided that the three vehicles which had operated at a substantial excess over the weights declared would c suspended for two months from August 1.
The case was reported in The Commercial Motor on October 9, 16 and 30, and November 27. 1959.
T.R.T.A. TRAFFIC BODY
A NATIONAL traffic committee is 1-k being set up by Traders' Road Transport Association. It will he concerned with exercising a watch to ensure that the essential requirements of C-licence operators are not overlooked or neglected. Legislation such as the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Bill is an example of the kind of proposed measure coming within the sphere of operation of the committee.
Another function will be the examination of means to widen T.R.T.A. contacts, not only with official bodies, but with trade and similar organizations.
The committee will be concerned with England and Wales. The Scottish Division arc appointing a simifar body.