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
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176 
TRIBUNAL TURNS DOWN SOUTHEND HAULIER
Page 65
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Transport Tribunal, sitting in -London last Friday, dismissed an appeal by Tower Transport (Southendon-Sea) Ltd. against a decision of the Eastern Licensing Authority in which he granted the transfer of one B licence vehicle to an A licence, instead of 12 vehicles applied for.
Mr. D. L. McDonald, for Tower Transport, said that before the case was heard, his client held an A licence for one vehicle with a user: "New furniture and packing materials, England, Scotland and Wales". and a B licence for 12 vehicles conditioned for the carriage of new furniture and packing materials in England, Scotland and Wales, and goods for two named customers. The company had applied to transfer the 12 vehicles on B to A licence.
Though the appellant company had three warehouses, the amount of nonfurniture work, evenapplying the strongest measure to it. was a small part of its business, and the reason for the application had been to spread this over the whole fleet.
Mr. McDonald submitted that prima fade it was the business of an A-licensed operator, and B licences were not suitable. The " fringe " traffic was small and if concentrated it could be carried on one vehicle, but for the convenience of operation Tower Transport wanted
it spread over the 12-vehicle fleet.
For the respondents (Westons of Wick ford (Transport) Ltd. and four others). Mr. M. H. Jackson-Lipkin said that the L.A. should only have granted a small variation of the existing B-licence conditions, which could not have been opposed.
The president of the Tribunal. Mr.
D. G. Squibb, asked Mr. McDonald whether he considered it unusual to grant an A licence for the purposes of enabling a carrier to carry occasional loads of goods which were outside his normal user. Mr. McDonald agreed that this was so. but it wis to be a regular carriage of occasional loads.
Giving the Tribunal's judgment, Mr. -Squibb said that the L.A. had been faced with a somewhat unusual position —he was being asked to grant an A licence to enable the carriage of goods which were not sufficient in quantity to justify, in the mind of the applicant, their inclusion in class or description of goods to be carried, in an application form.
The Authority, continued Mr. Squibb. came to the conclusion that there was some case for giving the applicant some relief. "We feel doubtful whether we would have gone as far as that', he added. The Tribunal did not consider that a case had been made out for any further additions to the A licence.