Haulier 'Complied With the Law'
Page 15
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I–I A HAULIER. who had been allowed
to substitute a vehicle on condition that the replacement was of not more than 1.100 Cu. ft, capacity, later replaced the second vehicle with one of nearly 1,500 Cu. ft.
The East Midland Licensing Authority. Mr. C. R. Hodgson. was told this at a public inquiry at Nottingham on Wednesday when George Clarke (Derby) Ltd., London Road, Derby, was asked to show Why an A carrier's licence should not be revoked, curtailed or suspended. Mr. A. C. G. Rothera, for the company, said that in April, 1961, an application was made for substitution of a vehicle. The company agreed to replace "this vehicle" with one not exceeding 1,100 cu. ft. capacity. In due course. and in accordance with the terms agreed, the vehicle FCH 995 was purchased by the Clarke company. In April, 1962, an application was made for this to be replaced by OCH 451. Form ZE22a was submitted and the applicationwas granted. Subsequently, the Ministry of Transport realized this new vehicle was of greater cubic capacity and, it was alleged, the firm was guilty of not fulfilling a statement of intention. Mr. Rothera said he did not agree that the limitation was continuing, but even if it was, the form diselosed the capacity. Mr. Rothera said there was nothing in the Act to say that anything should be mentioned in correspondence. Mr. Hodgson accepted the . explanaLion. '' I still think really it should have been acompanied by a little chit. But the law doesn't say he has to do so and he has complied with the law ", he said.