Met. L.A. Adjourns Application to Consider Revocation
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BECAUSE of other inquiries going on,. an application by Key Transport Co., London, was further adjourned by the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, Mr. D. I. R. Muir, last week.
The case originally came before the Authority in April when Mr. Muir, who was considering whether to revoke an A licence because of a false statement of intention, was told that, because of a recession in meat traffic, five A licensed vehicles, restricted to the carriage of meat and provisions in London and the Home Counties, were operating to the West Country carrying " various goods." The company said, at that inquiry, that they proposed to make a fresh application seeking a wider normal user, and Mr. Muir adjourned the matter.
This new application was commenced in March, and Mr. Muir agreed to an adjournment to allow certified figures to be produced by the applicants.
At last week's hearing, Mr. R. A. Hodge, a director of the company, said that the five vehicles concerned in the revocation had stopped operating to the West Country and were adhering to the restricted user.
Asked by Mr. R. M. Partington, his solicitor, if he realized that he had operated the vehicles last August "in breach of the law," Mr. Hodge replied that he was not aware of any unlawful actions. He was worried about the business and had done his best to put it right.
He wished to amend the normal user to " paper sacks, cable and electrical 134 equipment, provisions, building materials, timber, fertilizers and china clay " not restricted to London and the Home Counties.
After hearing evidence from one customer concerning the carriage of paper sacks, Mr. R. C. Oswald submitted that there was no case for the objectors, the B.T.C., to answer. • Many of the customers mentioned by the applicant were large customers of British Railways, and if his submission of "no case was refused he wished to call evidence.
Mr. Muir said that the matter was "so complicated" that he would adjourn his decision, and whether or not there was any case to answer the railways should give their evidence. After hearing two railway representatives the application was adjourned.