'DISCIPLINE' FOR VIOLATOR OF NORMAL USER
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WEST MIDLAND LA Mr. J. Else declined to take action under Section 178 against Mrs. M. Grimsley in respect of a February, 1963, false declaration of normal user, when she appeared before him at a resumed hearing in Birmingham.
But he felt that disciplinary action was necessary in respect of W. and M. Grimsley (Transport) Ltd., of Aston, which was taking over the business and applying for a new five-vehicle A licence. Under Section 174 Mr. Else said he would license the carriage of travel goods and raw materials for their manufacture, but he would defer the grant for six weeks from surrender date of the old licence.
Mrs. Grimsley had said that at the 1963 hearing she had anticipated carrying on the business as she had done for over 20 years on behalf of her invalid husband.
However, in September, 1963, following her husband's death and a fire in which she had received severe burns, she had entered into a management agreement with Mr. N. H. Hingley, transport manager of J. B. Brooks, for whom her company worked.
She thought that steel furniture had normally been put on her lorries but she was not in a position to tell whether other commodities, such as travel goods, had been loaded. The firm was paid on a mileage basis.
Mr. Else asked Mr. Hingley, a director of W. and M. Grimsley, why over 90 per cent of the loads had been travel goods—not included in the normal user when he assumed managership.
Mr. Hingley said he thought travel goods came into the category of "household goods" since suitcases were used for storage in the home.
Mr. Else said that a licensing system had to be enforced or fall into misuse. But he had to balance the seriousness of normal user violation against the fact that no other haulier appeared to have been harmed.