AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Round Three to Mr. Margret!

25th March 1966, Page 34
25th March 1966
Page 34
Page 34, 25th March 1966 — Round Three to Mr. Margret!
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?

NIIN the West Midland deputy LA glirEanted Mr. J. R. Margrett's modest A-licence bid at Worcester last week I was tempted to shout "Bravo!" Others in court, I know, shared my sentiments. "Recapping" briefly, it may be recalled that Mr. Margrett was granted a Contract A-to-A switch for one tipper in December, 1964. The objectors to that application did not like the decision and —as they were fully entitled to do—appealed to the Transport Tribunal.

The appeal in June, 1965, succeeded, and Mr. Margrett's modest gain was denied him. Sadder and poorer (by some £300, for legal expenses and the costs of transcripts for a three-day hearing) Mr. Margrett determined to try again. The bureaucratic mills of licensing grind slowly, like those of Providence, and one is only mildly surprised that an application form completed in mid-July last year (published in AD 1251 on August 5) is only finally determined 211 days later. (My calculation is from the last day for receiving objections.) Some of the criticisms made by solicitors Ian Jenkins and Norman Carless (see report, page 31) deserve ventilation in more detail.

A previous, similar applicationbyMargrett had taken three days to dispose of at a public inquiry and ended in an appeal to the Tribunal. It was apparent, said Mr. Carless, that the October list was overloaded and that the Margrett case would not be reached. (Not only was this a reliable estimate; three other cases were also held over!) To this, Mr. R. Hall, the deputy LA, said he had every confidence in the person arranging the hearings.

As regards the late start, Mr. Hall at first suggested this was because of the late arrival of the shorthand writer. When Mr. Jenkins said "It is my recollection that you were missing", Mr. Hall recalled that he had been unwell, but had not wished to cancel the inquiry at short notice.

Mr. Hall agreed that he had not advised the objectors in November that further information would be asked for, and he took full responsibility for refusing to release the availability schedules handed in at the November hearing.

To Mr. Jenkins's plaintive suggestion that there would have been nothing wrong in releasing the schedules to a responsible firm of solicitors—"they would not have been altered", he said—Mr. Hall, later in the proceedings, said there was no question of anyone's professional integrity being impugned in the slightest degree. And Mr. Hall defended himself in this "very difficult, knife-edge case" for requiring the objectors to provide fuller details of their vehicle availability.


comments powered by Disqus