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 
RHA withdraws objection after incorrect assumptions
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The RHA withdrew its objection to the application for 12 vehicles by Tivoli Contractors Ltd of Bristol when the hearing of the firm's case was resumed before the Western LA last week.
The objection had been on the grounds of financial resources and had been lodged on the discovery of a writ for a £22,000 debt being issued against the company.
For the RHA, Mr Grisewood, an accountant, said that the writ had been set aside as a result of a defence and a counter claim for £51,000. It was assumed that this would not be received. Other assumptions were made that showed that the company had a deficiency in liquid cash of about £30,000.
For the company, Mr N. Cannon pointed out that although not in a position to know, several of the assumptions that Mr Gii sewoo d had made were incorrect. ft had been assumed that the cost of maintenance facilities for the vehicles would amount to £10,000 whereas in fact £5000 had been spent and had been approved by the DoE. Only four vehicles were to be acquired immediately making a total of eight in possession with four to be acquired in a
year's time. In addition the vehicles were to be bought over a period of 36 months on hire purchase at 64 per cent with a deposit of 15 per cent and not over 24 months at 8 per cent with a 25 per cent deposit.
These incorrect assumptions, together with the fact that £10,000 had been put into the company by the sale of a company belonging to the managing director, Mr P. J. O'Keefe, and also group relief being received for its wholly owned subsidiary Hamilton Plant Hire Ltd meant that the total deficiency was nearer £21,000 than the total of £40,000 claimed by the objectors.
Mr T. D. Corpe, for the RHA, said that in taking the evidence in conjunction with the knowledge that substantial loan facilities were being provided by the company's bank and hire purchase firm it had been decided to oppose the application no further.
The LA, Mr J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon, then took the step of giving the applicant the choice of either being granted a licence for the whole 12 vehicles for a period of one year only or alternatively a licence for eight vehicles for two years. The eight-vehicle grant for two years was accepted.