Applications Stand or Fall On Facts and Figures
Page 65
Page 66
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
pROPERLY prepared licence applications not only save time and money, but ultimately can make the difference between the success or failure of a haulage business. Despite much helpful publicity by the Road Haulage Association, the Licensing Authorities and the technical Press, a high percentage of applications falls below a reasonable standard.
The first essential is to be able to present proper figures of earnings and operations and, to this end, the maintenance of accurate and easily accessible records is vital. In any application of substance the -Licensing Authority will require figures of earnings for the pasttwo years in comparative form, certified by independent accountants, • and apportioned between vehicles under different licences—A, B, contract A, or C-hire.
These must be supplemented by figures of tonnages carried, longand short-distance work, totals for the Main customers and, if normal user is involved, districts served. 'The extent of, and any increase in, hiring should be shown though the Transport Tribunal no longer regard such evidence as conclusive in applications for additional vehicles.
Book-keeping and accounting systems used by some haulage concerns, though in many respects adequate,. make it impossible or, at best, difficult, to comply with these requirements. It may cost money to put these things on a proper footing, but it will be far more expensive if a badly prepared case is lost, or adjourned for the preparation of proper figures.
The so-called " renewal " of a licence is in reality an application for a new licence and unless proper figures are provided the Licensing Authority may decide to hold a public inquiry. Similarly, when objections-have been withdrawn before the sitting is held, it mutt not be assumed that an application will be granted automatically. The Licensing Authority may take a favourable view of the absence of objection, but he still
must ensure there is a need for additional facilities or even the continuation of a licence.
Recent decisions of the Transport Tribunal point to the importance of filling in applications correctly and comprehensively. Apart from the much-discussed question of normal user, there is the aspect of false declarations which, in addition to questions of unladen weight and ..• alterations of vehicles, could apply to changes of• base.
The importance of ensuring that applications are made in good time cannot be Over-emphasized. The cOnsequences of allowing a licence to lapse could mean a vehiale involved in a serious accident was uninsured The number of licences allowed to lapse in this way is appalling. Offenders risk punitive action—apart from the civil risk of heavy damages after an accident.
When additional vehicles, alterations in normal user or of B-licence conditions are sought, proof of need by way of customer witnesses is usually essential. All applicants are issued with a pamphlet setting out the type of evidence required, but many arrive without witnesses, with badly prepared figures, and possibly a bundle of letters to which no great value will be attached.
It is necessary to prove an expansion in the business of the customer or district concerned, and it is-no use to call evidence of the good service being given. A customer witness should speak of additional facilities needed and the inconvenience that will be caused if they are not made .available. Preliminary discussions between the applicant, his counsel and witnesses, on the merits of the case, should be arranged whenever possible. Briefing on the day of the inquiry is often unsatisfactory.
If traffic is obtained through a clearing house or agency, such evidence will not be considered as strong proof of need. The only safe rule would beto produce witnesses from the original customers and where evidence is to be given of increases in production, the setting up of new industry and so on, accurate details, rather than V ague generalizations, a r e required. These should include ,the amount of traffic to be moved and the amount the applicant will . be expected to carry.
Of the objections • received, those from. independent
hauliers generally are more difficult to meet. Objections from the British Transport. Commission, particularly British Railways, are often made merely to obtain information regarding their rivals' customers and to fulfil their roli of " watchdogs." In sUch cases they seldom call evidence and are ready to reach agreement if, by so doing, an application can be whittled down. On the other hand, an independent operator seldom objects unless he genuinely feels his own business will be affected by a grant.
If evidence is to be given of the unsuitability of objectors' facilities,. either because of type of vehicle or poor service, care must be taken to produce, wherever possible, times and dates of damage in transit, failure of vehicles to arrive and any other fault Lobe alleged. If there is any doubt about the matter, the Licensing Authority will probably order an adjournment to allow the objectors time to look into the allegations.
The Transport Act, 1953, gave one ddvantage to applicants when it removed the need to show that other hauliers could not reasonably deal with the traffic they had been offered: The onus is now on objectors to show they are capable of doing so. Any objector who fails to give evidence that he can provide adequate facilities should carry, little weight, but in many cases an objector's advocate can get an application refused, without calling evidence Of his own.
The Licensing Authority is charged to have regard to the efficiency, reliability and adequacy of existing facilities at the date of the application, and the facilities to be n3 I provided if the application is granted. Thus, where it is possible to show that, an objector's facilities are inadequate it is desirable to bring it out in evidence, because an applicant cannot call fresh evidence after the objectors have given evidence of their own facilities.
When seeking a new normal user or conditions on B licence, it pays to keep them straightforward and simple. Many objections are made because the wording is so ambiguous as to mean almost anything. If the application is clear, the Licensing Authority is less likely to go through an applicant's traffic with a tooth-comb.
Although to some readers the foregoing may seem complicated and unnecessary, a little time and money spent on keeping the licensing side of a haulage business in order can reap golden dividends. The next article will deal with the presentation of applications before the Licensing Authority, and discuss the difficulties that can arise during the inquiry.