Licence fee query put to Tribunal
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• An interesting question was raised in Edinburgh last week during the hearing of an appeal by Thomas Small of Aberdeen against the refusal of an 0 licence by the deputy LA in Aberdeen earlier this year. It was indicated from the evidence that a licence had been granted but that the necessary fee had not been paid despite several applications. The appellant had then been advised that the grant of the licence was being withdrawn. The question raised by Mr M. S. R. Bruce, the advocate for Thomas Small, was whether the payment of the necessary fee was a prerequisite to the grant of a licence or whether, as he believed to be the case, the grant of a licence was the prerequisite to the payment of a fee.
The regulations provided for a situation where a vehicle was used without a disc and it was also clear that no disc would be issued without payment of the appropriate fee and issue of the licence, said Mr Bruce. He was unable to find anything in the Act which covered withdrawal of a licence because of failure to make the necessary payment.
The appellant's only real sin was failure to pay the £24 for the licence. He had never at any time operated without a licence. Looking at the regulations, Mr Bruce continued, the only relevant section appeared to be that which said an identity disc should not be issued until a fee had been paid but that was something quite different from the present argument. There was no record in Applications and Decisions that the licence had been withdrawn and Mr G. D. Squibb, president of the Tribunal, asked Mr Bruce whether he was suggesting that, as it was not among the refusals, it was in fact granted. Mr Bruce agreed that this was his case.
It was claimed by the appellant's counsel that there were quite clearly degrees of offences between using a vehicle without a licence (fine of £200) and of using a vehicle without a disc at £20. The disc offence was clearly the lesser and it would be such an offence that the appellant might face.
Mr Bruce said in mitigation that the firm had had 50 years' experience, previously held a C licence, and different considerations should apply in this case as against a new applicant. There had been an intention to grant a licence in March 1970 and acceptance that the appellant was a fit person and the only real change of circumstances was his overlooking a bill for £24. Family conditions had been very difficult over the past year and a medical certificate was provided covering the health of Mr Small's wife. He had been under duress at the time and had scarcely known what he was doing.
Mr Bruce maintained that there was an alternative penalty which could have been imposed rather than the withdrawal of the licence.
The Tribunal announced its decision to grant the appeal and will give its reasons in writing.