AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Bouts -Tillotson Replies to the Railways

25th December 1936
Page 37
Page 37, 25th December 1936 — Bouts -Tillotson Replies to the Railways
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

HEARING of the appeal by the four railway companies against the Metropolitan Licensing Authority's decision to en-ant Bouts-Tillotson Transport, Ltd., A licences for .328 vehicles and 42 trailers, far exceeded the allotted time. The ease was due to have finished on Monday of last week, but continued for the greater part of the week.

Mr. E. S. Herbert, representing Bouts-Tillotson Transport, Ltd., suggested that the railways were asking that road services with which the railways were able to compete should be eliminated.

" Division of Function."

"It is plain beyond question," he declared; "what railway companies are asking for in this case. I want the Tribunal to consider what the comequencies, both legal and practical, would he if the railway companies' submission were accepted. They are asking that the Licensing Authority shonld assume the task of ascertaining and deciding the economic division of function between road and rail."

Mr. Herbert added that what the railways had been saying was that the Licensing Authority should eliminate all road services with which the railways were able to compete. If this suggestion was acceded to by the Tribunal, the result would be that, in every future application for an A licence, the onus would be on the applicant to satisfy the Licensing Authority that the traffic which he intended carrying could not be suitably transported by the railways. Mr. Herbert went one " It is quite impossible for this Tribunal, or the Licensing Authority, to have any knowledge which will be suitable to act upon in taking the step suggested by the railways. How can the Authority know why a particular trader is sending his particular traffic by our vehicles? That seems to go to the root of the procedure which the Licensing Authority would have to go through. in the event of the railway companies' submission being accepted."

Another step which would have to be taken, were the licences not allowed, was that, with every application, the Licensing Authority would have to be shown why the particular tonnage to be sent by road could not suitably be

transPorted by rail. The Authority would have to be satisfied that the trader had reasonable grounds for believing that the road services of which he was making use were more adequate than those of the railways.

Competition Removed.

Mr. Herbert concluded his speech last Thursday. The appeal has now lasted eight days. It is adjourned until Wednesday next.

Mr. Herbert said that the evil elements of competition had, to a large extent, been removed by the provision of the Act placing conditions on licences, etc.

Referring to evidence given at the first proceedings on the rates charged by Bouts-Tillotson's before October, 1935, he said that a substantial loss during the year was ad.

mated. A frank explanation was

given, he continued, and the loss was clue to the charging of rates which, at one time, were uneconomic, After October, 1935, rates were raised and had remained so ever since.

" At a very late stage in the proceedings," went on Mr. Herbert, "it was thought desirable that Bouts-Tillotson's tonnage carried since 1935 should be investigated, in order to see whether the new prices had had an effect. It turned out that there was no substantial deviation from the previous year."

" Elimination" Demanded.

Mr, Herbert, summing up his case, said : " I submit that the railways were, and still are, asking for the elimination of Bouts-Tillotson's and all other trunk services. The Licensing Authority, when making the award, exercised his discretion and he did not 'act contrary to any principle of the Act. He did not find, nor was he able to find, that there was in existence an excess of facilities over requirements_ He asked the Tribunal to say that the Licensing Authority had done nothing or omitted nothing that would now alter the decision. He asked that his client should be awarded substantial costs. " We are in a very unfortunate position in this case," he said, "as we are fighting what is regarded as a test case, not only for our own interests, -but also for other road-haul age services."


comments powered by Disqus