AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

"Important Evidence Overlooked ", W HEN the Metropolitan Licensing Authority heard an

7th November 1958
Page 49
Page 49, 7th November 1958 — "Important Evidence Overlooked ", W HEN the Metropolitan Licensing Authority heard an
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?

application by Tartan Arrow Service, Ltd., London, S.E.1, no one noticed that certain evidence brought up the question of irregular operation by the company. This was stated by Mr. Hubert Hull, president of the Transport Tribunal, when he directed on Tuesday that the application for six contract-A vehicles to be put on to A licence should be re-heard.

Tartan Arrow had appealed against the Authority's decision to refuse the application. Mr_ C. R. Beddington, for the company, said the vehicles, four of which were on hire, carried new furniture and general goods to the Midlands, the North of Scotland, and locally for Herrmann, Ltd., furniture manufacturers, Rayleigh, Essex.

The appeal was resisted by the British Transport Commission and four private hauliers, Wades Transport (Tottenham). Ltd.; Guest Scottish Carriers, Ltd.; W. Pike, Ltd.; and Road Services (Caledonian), Ltd.

Mr. J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon, for the B.T.C., contended that Herrmann's had been prodded into supporting the application in the hope that rates would be either lower or stable.

Mr. J. Amphlett, for the other objectors, suggested that there might have been irregularities in the use of the contract vehicles for three concerns which were described as .Herrmann's subsidiaries.

Directing that the case should be re-heard by the Authority, Mr. Hull said the haulier and customer should be given an opportunity to refute the allegation.

• a 1 5


comments powered by Disqus