Act Misinterpreted, says C.M.U.A.
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AISINTERPRETATION of the inMtentions of the 1933 Act was a charge levelled against Licensing Authorities in a report at the annual general meeting, in Manchester, on Wednesday evening, of subscribers to the goods-vehicle-licensing scheme of the C.M,U.A.
The report described as of paramount importance Section 11 (3) (e), dealing with the transfer of licences. Under this Section, a Licensing Authority need not publish an application of this type, but under Section 11 (5) the Authority may hold such inquiries as he thinks necessary for the proper exercise of his functions.
" Authorities are holding that it can be applied to any case of goods-vehicle licensing," stated the report. "We are of opinion that the Authorities have misinterpreted the intentions of the Act . . . we have a case in hand which might be the means for clarifying the position throughout the country."
The report deplored the fact that, in many instances, especially in the North-Western Area, many hauliers have been forced to accept B licences, although not having ancillary businesses. Something would have to be done nationally to alter the procedure under which eight weeks' notice had
to be given of applications. Subscribers to the scheme in the Manchester area increased from 160 to 984.