Contract Applications Refused

14th September 1962, Page 75

14th September 1962

Page 75

Page 75, 14th September 1962 — Contract Applications Refused

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

A HAULAGE • contractor heard him1—k. self described as "not a fit and proper person to be in the industry," when ha appeared before the South Wales Licensing Authority at -Cardiff last week.The L.A., Mr. Ronald Jackson, told Mr. Glyn Day (of the firm of G. Day and Sons, Ltd., of High Street, Heolycyw, near Bridgend, Glamorgan),.thaVhe i,vas a disgrace to the industry. Mr.: Jackson refused both DaY's appliCatibris, for contract .1ilk licences. Mr. Jackson explained that he had called Day before him because he wanted to satisfy himself whether or not Day was a fit and proper person to have a licence.

A Ministry of Transport senior traffic inspector. Mr. Stanley James Carnfield, stated that Day had .repeated convictions over the past 12 months.. It was because of the seriousness of these that he had asked Mr. Jackson to see Day, Mr. Carnfield added that Day had been examined by him and also in a previous traffic court, and the advice given to Day appeared to have been. totally ignored.

On May 17, 1961, Day had been con, • yicted of operating an unlicensed vehicle. Mr. Camfield saw him after he received another conviction for operating an unlicensed vehicle, and for exhibiting a licence which did not belong to him with intent to deceive. While that was in abeyance, Day appeared at a public inquiry where he was given certain advice by Mr. Jackson.

On June 12. Mr. Caulfield saw Day again, after he had been convicted of operating without a licence. In this instance, he had manufactured a disc himself and put it on the windscreen There was also another conviction for had maintenance of his vehicle. Day, said Mr. Canfield, had openly admitted all the offences.

Day stated in evidence that,. in the first instance, he had bought another man's business. The licence was still in the previous owner's name, although he had applied for the change-over. The next offence, he said, was when he was still running a business for the former owner. When his driver was stopped, he said he was working for Day and he was actually employed by him. There was a licence on the vehicle.

On another occasion, he had applied for a contract A licence which was sent bock to him for signature. No mention was made that he would have to come to the court and, after waiting for three

weeks, he went ahead and used the Vehicle, thinking that everything was all right.

Mr. Jackson commented: "Licensing does not mean very much to you does it?"—" Of course it does, sir."

Day added that he had no intention to deceive. "1 put a form in, but nObody said anything to me that I would not be granted a licence. I had taxed the vehicle. and insured it. I had been in touch with the Ministry, but they would not give me any information. I have always had my other applications through in a flash."

Mr. Jackson said he had warned Day before what he thought of operators who treated the traffic laws with conterript.

I warned you what would happen if you came before me again.

"In my opinion you are not a fit and proper person to be in the industry. You are a disgrace to it. I will refuse_both these El pp I ica ti Ons."