Too early for representations
Page 16
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• West Midland IC John Mervyn Pugh is considering calling a Sutton Coldlield company to a further public inquiry after originally deciding that proceedings involving the review of its operating centre were null and void because the notice of the review had been issued too early.
Transform Shop Office And Bar Fitters had been called to a Birmingham public inquiry following representations from Birmingham City Council and neighbouring residents. It held a licence authorising three vehicles from Clarance Road, Four Oaks, Sutton Coldfield, Pugh said that when a licence was reviewed he had to satisfy himself the operating centre was suitable, taking account of any representations.
The only chance people had to make representations was every five years.
For the company, Hugh Richards said the legislation laid down that the periods of review were five years beginning with the date specified in the licence as the date on which it came into force.
The date when the company's licence came into force was 21 July 1992. Therefore the period of review started on 21 July 1997. The review notice had to be served in the two months after that date but the notice of the review was received by the company on 18 July.
The notice was not served regularly and was not a prop er notice, said Richards, and consequently Pugh had no jurisdiction to consider his powers under sections 31 and 32 of the act. The mistake that seemed to have been made was to assume the two months ran from the date the licence expired, which in this case was 30 June 1997, and not five years from when the licence was stated to have run.
Holding that those arguments were correct and the proceedings were null and void, Pugh said it was a decision that would have serious repercussions for the Traffic Area Network, Traffic Commissioners and operators Previously all the Traffic Areas had deemed licences to terminate on the wrong date.