Transport Tribunal in Scotland
Page 48
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Deputy LA. Criticized THE Transport Tribunal, sitting in Edinburgh last week, criticized the Scottish deputy Licensing Authority for indicating that he thought an applicant had made out a case and did not want to hear any further evidence in support of the licence, and then, after hearing evidence from the objectors, refusing the
application. In addition, the Tribunal commented on the fact that the deputy Authority had taken into consideration in coming to his decision information, with regard to the objectors' services, that he had gained subsequent to the hearing.
They were hearing an appeal by A. and C. McLennan of Spittalfield, against the refusal of an application to vary a B licence by the addition of a car transporter.
Mr. G. W. Izatt, for the appellants, submitted that there was ample evidence to warrant the grant.
Mr. Izatt said that he queried the right of the L.A. to Make his own inquiries after the hearing of the evidence. There • had been no opportunity for him to crossexamine any of the people with whom the Authority had spoken.
The Tribunal president, Mr. G. D. Squibb, said that it was very unsatisfactory for the Authority to indicate, before he had heard all the available evidence, that he thought a prima facie case had been made out, because, if having done that he does not accept the application, the applicant must be left with an unsatisfied feeling that if the whole of his evidence had been put before the Authority, the result might have been different.
The other matter which seemed to be unsatisfactory was the fact that the Authority had made private inquiries and ascertained certain matters which he took into consideration in arriving at his decision. It had been held that a Licensing Authority was entitled to make use of knowledge of the transport position which he had acquired generally in the course of his duties, but if he contemplated using it, he ought to give the parties an opportunity of dealing with it. No such opportunity was given in the present case. "That seems to us to be a very unsatisfactory state of affairs."
In the view of the Tribunal, after taking account of the railway facilities. the appellants had made out a case and 'the appeal would be allowed.
. Second Time THE Tribunal again criticized the deputy L.A. for seeking information from an applicant after an inquiry had been held. They were hearing an appeal by Road Services (Forth), Ltd., against the deputy's decision to grant them one van in place of two vans and two artic vehicles, they sought to add to their. A licensed fleet.
814 Mr. l. Macdonald, for the appellants, said that on the evidence it was clear that there had been a considerable increase in customer business and considerable inconvenience to them, but the deputy L.A. had said in his decision that this was only " slight." The evidence went much further.
Certain documents that the deputy Authority had requested had been lodged after the inquiry. These, said Mr. Macdonald, "seemed to have been accepted."
Mr. A. B. Wilkinson, for the B.T.C. (respondents), submitted that far from lending support to the contention which had been put forward by Mr. Macdonald, the figures showed there had been no increase in pressure on the appellants' fleet.
Referring to the figures that had been obtained by the deputy after the inquiry, Mr. Wilkinson said; "It is unfortunate that this procedure should have been followed. I have had no opportunity of cross-examining on them or illiciting any information as to what the significance is. I take the strongest exception to having to meet a case based on them."
Giving judgment, Mr. Squibb said that the procedure adopted by the Authority was improper arid was one which ought not to be followed. The only question of dispute was one of quantum. Giving the matter the best consideration, they had decided that the Authority's decision was one which they did not feel they were justified in interfering with and the appeal would be dismissed.
Aberdeen Haulier's Appeal Fails THE Tribunal dismissed an appeal I by an Aberdeen haulier, Gaulds Transport, against a decision of the Scottish deputy Licensing Authority, in which he granted only one vehicle on A licence instead of the two requested. At the same time, they dismissed a counter appeal by the B.T.C. and two independent operators against any grant to Gaulds Transport at all.
For the appellants, Mr. W. D. Connochie said that his clients had applied for two bulk grain transporters; both were fitted with an air discharge. There was evidence of a new customer with a demand of 66 tons of bulk grain to be carried per month.
The grounds of the appeal were that one vehicle was not sufficient to meet the proved demand. The Scottish deputy Licensing Authority had failed to take into account that a vehicle might have to be taken off the road for overhaul or repair. Further, there was no indication of how the Authority had arrived at one vehicle, except on the hypothetical case that if his clients had two bulk trans
porters, they may take back traffic now being carried on flat vehicles.
For the respondents (the B.T.C., Allisons Transport (Contracts), Ltd., and Kelman's of Turriff), Mr. A. B. Wilkinson said that the Tribunal were really only concerned with the question of whether or not the appellants should have two additional vehicles. The revenue figures were such as to show that there was no undue pressure on the appellants' fleet. Whilst it was true that the figures showed a certain increase in earnings, that increase was only £4,000 in a year, which could be explained, in part, by an increase in rates. There was a substantial increase in sub-contracting, and the only inference that could be drawn was that the facilities are available. The appellants had failed to make out a ease even for the grant of one vehicle.
The Transport Tribunal said that the fact that bulk carriage of grain was ousting the older form of carriage in sacks Was not sufficient to justify the grant of additional vehicles; it might well be that the proper course to take would be to change vehicles in the existing fleet. But there was an additional customer. The Tribunal considered that the Authority's decision to grant one additional vehicle was right. The appeal was therefore dismissed, as was the crossappeal.
Question of User THE fact that an operator had not complied with his declared normal user with regard to the percentage of goods he carried for certain specified customers did not bar that evidence from being considered in an application for additional tonnage, the Tribunal ruled when hearing an appeal by T. C. Brown and Co., of Lochmaben, last week.
For the appellants, Mr. C. E. Jauncey said that the appeal arose out of the refusal of the Scottish Licensing Authority to vary an A licence by the grant of three additional vehicles. The Authority had ruled that there was no case to answer. The decision Mr. Jauncey submitted was wrong; a prima facie case for additional tonnage had been -made out and the appeal should be allowed: alternatively, the case should he remitted back to the Licensing Authority by the Tribunal with a direction that there was a case to answer.
Mr. Squibb said the suggestion that the Tribunal should not have regard to the figures because much of the traffic on which they were based was outside the declared user, was "not a justifiable criticism." All it showed was that there had been a change of emphasis. Nevertheless, according to the evidence, they felt that the Authority had come to the correct decision and the appeal would be dismissed.