LA changes decision on remitted case
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The Western LA has decided not to revoke the licence of P. G. and J. M. Gerrish after the case had been remitted to him by the Transport Tribunal.
The LA revoked the licence for eight vehicles and five trailers and also refused an application after hearing evidence of 11 GV9s received in a 12-month period and a conviction for using rebated fuel. The Transport Tribunal remitted the case because not all the evidence that was available at the time of the hearing had been heard by the LA (CM December 1 1972).
The LA. Mr J. R. C. Samuel Gibbon. stated in his written decision that the original revocation had been based on his views of his duties under Section 69 and these had not been disputed by the Tribunal when it remitted the case. However, since then the LA had learned that his views were considered by the Tribunal to be wrong in principle. At the second hearing the LA considered first the application for a new licence.
Mr Samuel Gibbon stated that since the date of the original application steps had been taken by the applicants to improve their maintenance arrangements. Included in this was the fact that the size of the fleet had been reduced. The LA decided to grant a licence for five vehicles and five trailers only and for a period of two years instead of five. The question of a direction under Section 69 did not arise, stated the LA, because the old licence now ceased to exist.
Similar circumstances existed in relation to a second case which is the subject of another written decision of Mr Samuel 'Gibbon.
In June last year the licence of Mr A. J. Leaves was revoked and although he lodged notice of appeal against the decision he later withdrew the appeal before it could be heard. Mr Leaves later applied again (the subject of this decision) but the matter continued, stated Mr Samuel Gibbon, with a conviction since the revocation for unlawful operations. But nothing had happened since the date on which Mr Leaves had lodged the latest application which was relevant to Section 64 (2)(a) of the Act.
The LA felt that in addition to any fines imposed for unlawful operation a reduction in any grant made would satisfy the requirements of the Act. The LA therefore decided to allow a grant for three vehicles and one trailer. At the time of the revocation there were four vehicles authorized.