AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Put Your House in Ord.er—or Go Out of Business—Mr. Hanlon at Durham

5th June 1959, Page 52
5th June 1959
Page 52
Page 52, 5th June 1959 — Put Your House in Ord.er—or Go Out of Business—Mr. Hanlon at Durham
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?

Keywords : Traffic Law, Law / Crime

DEFUSING an applicatiOn for a B N. licence at Durham last Week, the 'Northern LiCensing Authority, Mr.

.I. A.' T. 'Hanlon, warned T. and D. Haulage, Ferryhill,Co. Durham, that unless, they took rapid steps to put their house in order they would find themselves out of business in the northern area.

-The company, applying for a limited B licence for one tipper, told the Licensing Authority, through Mr. F. Milton, that their licence had expired on January 31. They had received no reminder from the Authority's office and were unaware of: the expiry until advised. #

When the matter, came to light they applied and were granted a shortierm licence. The vehicle had not been used after the expiry of the licence, Owing to

an. accident; and a .replacement vehicleif. less Unladen weight was now on the road: •

The original vehicle,i the :subject Of the application, bad been .removed -from the licence.

Accident Questions

After giving reasons why the licence had not been renewed at the appropriate time, Mr. William Davies, a partner in the firrn, was questioned by Mr. Hanlon about the accident. Mr. Davies said that it Was , caused by his driver trying to pass. between a vehicle and a wall, the space .

between being too narrow. •

",lt bears no relation to the fact that you appeared before the Justices charged with operating a dangerous vehicle, and fined?" asked Mr. _Hanlon. Mr. Davies said that the vehicle Mr. Hanlon was referring to was a van. He admitted, however, that T. and D. Haulage had been convicted twice at Middlesbrough within two months, in 1957; for operating a dangerous vehicle, although he did not know the details because his brother had been running the business at that time.

No Appeals Made

Asked about a conviction 'at Darlington last November, Mr. Davies contended that he was wrongly convicted on that occasion. He admitted that' he did not appeal against the conviction, nor did he ,appeal against the prohibition order which was then served upon him. Asked what was found wrong with the vehicle on that occasion, Mr. Davies stated that it was said to have had faulty steering, and the spring shackles were loose.

Mr. Hanlon: " Don't you think if they were loose the vehicle was dangerous?" Mr. Davies: " It could be, or it could not be. The driver didn't kill anybody." Mr. Hanlon: You think a goods vehicle has to kill somebody, or hit somebody, before the owner does something about it? " Answer: " Not necessarily.

Mr. Hanlon then questioned Mr. Davies about further 'prohibition notices which had been issued against the partnership's vehicles, and read out long lists of defects including a loose steering box, c 10 defective brakes and speedometer, loose door hinges, excessive wear on king pins, a tyre worn through to the canvas, etc.

When asked -what he had to say about the matter, Mr. Davies said that he had nothing to say, except that they now had new vehicles on the road. He was taking every possible step to obviate recurrences of the prohibitions, but money was the big factor. He now, employed a fitter and • had received advice from the Ministry's examiner.

Appalling Conduct

Giving his decision, Mr. Hanlon said that the' previous conduct of -the applicants had been -appalling. "He (Mr. Davies) comes before me in a state of aggression to say that he has been wrongly convicted and Jam asked to take into account his assurance that every step Will be taken to keep his house in order in the future.

"That will -not do in this Traffic Area and I refuse this application," said Mr. Hanlon, adding that the short-term licence would come to an end at once. He was in two. minds whether to serve a notice of intention to revoke or suspend the firm's other licences and put them out of business altogether. He was 'very seriously considering whether they were fit people to hold licences, and he would be failing in, his duty if -he granted the licence.


comments powered by Disqus