Tribunal Asked to Consider Basis for Vehicle Earnings
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Tnladen weight disparities between %-) petrol and diesel vehicles cast doubt on the " earnings per ton unladen weight" formula accepted as valid by some Licensing Authorities, said Mr. M. H. Jackson-Lipkin to the Transport Tribunal last week. He urged the Tribunal to give some guidance to LAs on this recurring theme, Mr, Jackson-Lipkin was speaking for Maehins Transport (Surf-lee° Ltd. and others, who appealed against the grant of an additional A-licensed vehicle to .0. W. Pell (Kirton) Ltd. by the East Midland deputy LA. Mr. J.. Langham appeared for Pell, respondeots to the appeal.
The appeal was based on the objectors' belief that their fleets, doing comparable work, were earning More than Veil's vehicles, said Mr. Jackson-Lipkio. The inference was that he could do more, and that his operations should be intensified before he asked for additional vehicles.
The pre-war -esoteric calculation of vehicle earnings accepted by some LAs today was questionable, said counsel, who urged the Tribunal to give goidanee to the industry on this subject.
Continuing, Mr. Jackson-Lipkin said there had been no evidence of serious inconvenience or difficulty. Such evidence as there Ni US, was so ill defined as to he of no assistance to the LA. The objectors had been handicapped by documents handed in during the inquiry; counsel appealed to the Tribtmal to reiterate the previously expressed view that applicants should provide copies of documents to the LA and the objectors at least seven days prior to the inquiry. This practice
should apply to both sides, Mr. JacksonLipkin stressed.
Only two instances out of 12 difficulties mentioned by Pelts had been real, counsel continued. One referred to shortage of transport for the fluctuating sprats traffic from Whitstable. The other referred to a load which had missed a ship. .A Tower Hill vehicle had helped .Pell on one Occasion, being brought out of the pitintshop before the paint was dry. In brief, help was given to Pell by objectors.,
despite their own difficulties. • •
The deputy LA's 'duty was to •assess need.-continued Mr. Jackson-Lipkin: To do so he needed to know :the type of work involved, the collectionand delivery points, the time the vehicle was ordered, the urgency of the load and so on. He also needed to know the earnings of the fleet. Counsel suggested that Pelt's earnings--worked out at 032 per ton unladen weight per year.
Mr. Langham said the Objectors had not proved that the grant of one vehicle, of two applied for, was in excess of requirements. The evidence of customet. witnesses. in his view, corroborated the applicant's case. His calculations indicated that Pell's earnings worked out at £836. He did not consider • the deputy LA misdirected himself in any way; he was not perverse. The case reminded him of a criminal who put op a good case of denial until he entered the witness box and then admitted he was guilty—leaving the det7ence in the air. The onus of proof of availability lay with the objectors and they had not discharged this.
The president said the Tribunals decision would he put in writing.