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 
Tribunal rules on five appeals
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• In, five written judgments issued this week, the Transport Tribunal has upheld in part two appeals, dismissed one and remitted two back to the appropriate Licensing Authorities. The two which were partly successful were against decisions of the South East deputy Licensing Authority.
Southern Linen Services Ltd had its operator's licence curtailed from nine vehicles to eight and was refused a variation to the licence by the addition of two vehicles. The licence had been curtailed because cf the company's apparent failure to make proper use of its maintenance facilities. This had subsequently changed when the vehicle examiner told the deputy LA in cross-examination that the situation was now satisfactory.
The Tribunal decided that Southern Linen's past shortcomings should not go unpunished, but they reduced the deputy LA's punishment to the curtailment of one vehicle for six months.
The appeal by E. J. Hamilton of Southampton was against the deputy LA's decision to reduce its licence from five vehicles to two vehicles for 15 days. The proceedings had been initiated following the issue of four prohibition and one defect notice to the company.
The judgment states that if the deputy LA had confined himself only to those matters which he was entitled to take into account he might not have been any more lenient in his judgment. However, because other evidence had been taken into account the Tribunal partly upheld the appeal by suspending two vehicles from the licence for 15 days.
When C. C. Fairhead, of Suffolk, was called to a public inquiry under Section 69 in the Eastern area, he left the courtroom before the sitting began alleging that the
deputy Licensing Authority was 20 minute2 late and after informing the clerk of hit intention to do so. The matter was deali with in his absence and the deputy LA revoked the licence.
White the 'Tribunal was not prepared tc say that the revocation was unjustified it hat remitted the matter to the Eastern traffic area for a rehearing.
1. Pawson, a haulage contractor frorr Blackburn, had his appeal against tilt revocation of his licence by the Nord' Western LA dismissed. He had asked th( Tribunal to deal with his appeal in hit absence. In a letter to the Tribunal th( appellant stated "As I have found out have to keep regular maintenance sheets 1 shall do so in the future".
V. Davies, who trades as Jubilei Transport in the West Midlands traffic area had his appeal against the LA's decision tr curtail his licence by one vehicle upheld ii so far as it was remitted to the LA fo: further hearing. The appellant stated that 2 vehicle that had received a prohibitior notice was not on his operator's licence bui had been on hire to him, although it ha been his intention to purchase the vehicli subsequently. The Tribunal states that the3 have no evidence whether or not thi Licensing Authority believed the appellant': evidence on this matter.
It is critical of the evidence of the vehicli examiner' who instead of answerirq questions on the suitability of the facilities embarked on an account of what happenec over appointments to meet the appellant The Tribunal takes the view that tilt evidence taken at the public inquiry wa: insufficient for them to be confident that thi LA's decision was right or wrong and it for this reason that it has been remitted fO: further hearing.