Stole loads but keeps licence
Page 24
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A Doncaster haulier who stole six loads of aggregate has retained his licence at a Leeds disciplinary inquiry.
He appeared before North Eastern LA Keith Waterworth who had planned to revoke the two-vehicle licence held by Philip Slingsby of Top Lane, Kirk Bramwith, Doncaster, but Slingsby had asked for the matter to be considered at a public inquiry.
Waterworth said that he had proposed revoking the licence because of the convictions and also because Slingsby had not notified him of them. Slingsby said that though he had been convicted in January 1993, the offences had in fact occurred four years ago. He had really been doing someone a favour. He had taken six loads of
aggregate' s°111e There had been rial, as a favour for a tangle of
the weighbridge
man. He was told by misinformation
the police that he should plead guilty. He had been under the doctor, suffering from stress, at the time he should have informed the LA about the convictions.
Asked why he had initially denied that the convictions were his, Slingsby said that there had been a lot of confusion between his licence and a licence held by
his son, Philip David Slingsby There were occasions when his son's vehicles had been vo.ongly specified on his licence. There was a lot of confusion between his son and himself. Asked who Jack Slingsby was, Slingsby said this was his brother. The LA commented that there had been a
tangle of misinformation.
Slingsby said he was not operating any vehicles at the moment because of the recession. He had had a good record in the years since he had started operating in 1969, and he had always tried to do what was right. These were the only convictions ever recorded against him. Cutting the duration of the licence to expire six months early at the end of December, Waterworth said the penalties imposed did not bring the convictions into the realms of serious convictions as defined in the regulations. Nor did he find that they were "road transport offences" as specified in the regulations— either of which would have meant automatic revocation of the licence.
He had taken account of the fact that there had been no further convictions since these offences were committed in October 1991. Consequently, though Slingsby's repute had been adversely affected, he did not consider that it had been lost.