Two C Licences Suspended
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WHEN he suspended the C licences of two Aberdeen operators, last week, for frequent breaches of the conditions, the Scottish Deputy Licensing Authority said: "I know there are other operators with goods licences breaking the law, and I hope they will have regard to the proceedings today. Any further cases of a like nature need not expect to receive the same lenient treatment as I have meted °lit today."
Messrs. W. P. Clark and Joe Little, Ltd., were called upon to show why their licences should not be revoked or suspended. The licence of Messrs. Clark, who operate seven vehicles with another 12 under a hiring margin, was suspended from February 1-14, and that of Joe Little, Ltd., who have 10 vehicles and another four under hiring margin, for the whole of this month.
The Authority said that the two operators had been repeatedly prosecuted for violations of the conditions of their C licences. Various sheriff courts had inflicted fines which had apparently been of no financial concern, as the maximum penalty for failing to keep proper drivers' records was only £20, Fortunately, he said, he had power to revoke or suspend licences where
breaches occurred frequently, wilfully or to the public danger. He thought that all three conditions were present in the cases being considered.
There had been an utter disregard of the conditions of the licences so far as drivers' records were concerned. Enforcement officers had the greatest difficulty in obtaining records, and when produced they were found to be fictitious.
He was glad to have received undertakings from the operators that circumstances were now changed.
One of Clarks drivers had been fatally injured in an accident and no records had been available for the previous fortnight, and his working hours could not be checked. Little's had a history of accidents, some fatal. Several prosecutions had taken place and there was a formidable list of other incidents. In 1952, a warning letter had been sent to the company, but it was not acknowledged.
"If anything," said the Authority. "my decision errs on the side of leniency, and I warn both operators that if there is not an improvement in their attitude to the law I will have no hesitation in revoking the licences entirely."