Anderson Appeals : Tribunal Make Little Alteration to Grant
Page 48
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AFULL decision on the appeals and cross-appeals involving the British Transport Commission and Mr. Sam Anderson, Newhouse, Motherwell, was given last week by the'Transport Tribunal (The Commercial Motor, last week).
Mr. Hubert Hull, president, said Mr. Anderson made three applications to the Scottish Licensing Authority last September: The first was for five eight-ton tippers and five five-ton tippers to be acquired, the second for fOur 71-ton platform lorries, and the third was a " substitution " application—three eightwheeled platform vehicles instead of sixwheelers.
The Authority granted the five large tippers in the first application. In the second application. two " flats " were granted instead of four, and Mr. Anderson was appealing for more, whilst the 13.T.C. and some private hauliers appealed on the ground that, the grant was excessive. The B.T.C. were also appealing because the " substitution " application was granted.
Mr. Hull said the tipper application related to two customers, the Coltness Iron Co., Ltd., and McKay and Co., coal merchants. McKay's evidence could not be relied upon, so the case rested entirely on the needs of the iron company, who had been served for some months by Mr. Anderson under contract-A licence. They now wanted this work to be done under public A licence, and wanted to give up their own C-licensed vehicles.
The B.T.C. had argued that it was not sufficient for a haulier to show that a customer wanted to make such a change, but the Tribunal rejected this, which meant that the main question was how much tipper capacity Mr. Anderson should be granted.
The Tribunal thought the grant of five vehicles should stand, on condition that all contract-A work with the company were brought to an end. They were doubtful whether the grant of the two platform vehicles could really be upheld, but had decided not to interfere with it.
In fact, the result of the two appeals would be that Mr. Anderson's would be dismissed, whereas those by the B.T.C. and private hauliers would be upheld with certain reservations. .
On the "substitution" appeal, the grant could stand on condition that one other vehicle—on the Coltness Corn-. pany's licence—were surrendered.