1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148 
Know the Rudiments, and Get a Transport Lawyer
Page 91
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE North Western Deputy Licen
Ising Authority, Mr. A. H. Jolliffe, was putting it very mildly indeed when he said—giving his decision in the recently concluded application by H. I. Huyton, Ltd., of Liverpool—that it was "most unsatisfactory" that witnesses (he was referring to officials of the parent company of Huyton's) should admit that they knew little about I:censing.
Despite the fact that Huyton's had changed the base of some 16 vehicles from St. Helens to Liverpool, and integrated them in their parent company's fleet, Mr. Iolliffe granted the application —a decision, I understand, that may possibly be. taken to appeal by the British Transport Commission.
During the course of evidence given by the managing director of the parent company and another director, who was also the depot manager, both admitted that they knew little about licensing. Later, in conversation with the two, they told me that it was not until recently that they realised just how important a bearing licensing had on their business.
nNLY a few days after Mr. Jolliffe's
"most unsatisfactory" remark in Liverpool, Mr. Muir, the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, was raising his eyebrows at statements made by another director of a haulage company. He was holding a revocation inquiry into the affairs of Mr. A. Lloyd George, trading as Tarbuns Transport. of Walthamstow. London.
Mr. George, it appears, was the director of three businesses. He decided to purchase three vehicles to " assist " three vehicles he already operated. Unrepresented, he attended a public inquiry and, because of an objection by the B.T.C., on the advice of the Authority he withdrew the application. He was given certain advice about making another application that would meet the objectors hut, to use his own expression, he became mentally confused about the normal user. He thought he only had to keep to the user provided the traffic was available. But if no loads of that kind were in the offing, he thought he could operate the vehicles under the general goods. user of his existing vehicles.
At the revocation inquiry Mr. George said that he just did not know the meaning of "normal user," and certainly knew nothing of the implications of a declaration on an application form. He had signed a blank application form, having left the details to be completed by his manager. He never read forms that he signed, anyway.
The result is that Mr. Muir .thought it "a particularly bad case," and suspended the vehicles for two months.
The morals to be drawn from these incidents are two-fold. However hardworking a haulier may be, he must find time to study the basic rudiments of the law, and, although it may prove a little costly, it is always advisable to employ an advocate well versed in transport law.