AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

He did not understand

26th April 1968, Page 28
26th April 1968
Page 28
Page 28, 26th April 1968 — He did not understand
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?

'normal user' tribunal told • A Chatteris haulage contractor operated outside his authorized area and then asked the Eastern Licensing Authority, Mr. W. P. S. Ormond, to rubber-stamp what he had done, the Transport Tribunal was told in London on Tuesday.

Seven other hauliers had appealed to the Tribunal against a decision of the LA, which, said their counsel, Mr. Richard Yorke, increased the fleet of Mr. Thomas Barrett from two to three vehicles and gave him authority to operate across the whole of England and Wales. Previously, he had been restricted to the Eastern counties.

Mr. Barrett of Clare Street, Chatteris, who had been granted a public A carrier's licence, with an extended normal user to cover agricultural and horticultural produce and requisites and imported fruit, resisted the appeals.

The Tribunal reserved its decision.

Mr. Yorke said that in September 1966 Mr. Barrett, who previously had had only two vehicles on a Contract A licence, bought the business of R. Cornwell and Son, and obtained the A public carrier's licence on the takeover. That licence had a normal user of bricks, coal and agricultural goods in the Eastern counties. In practice, Mr. Cornwell carried almost wholly bricks (for the London Brick Co.), a very small amount of coal and no agricultural goods.

Mr. Yorke alleged: "But he proceeded not to run the business he took over at all, but started immediately a new business. He went straight into the carrying of agricultural produce and imported fruit. Over half of the work he did was for Superior International Ltd., the Great Yarmouth produce importers."

At the hearing before the LA, Mr. Barrett had said that he had carried outside his authorized area—to the Midlands, South Wales, the South West, the South, to part of Yorkshire, and into Lancashire.

Mr. Yorke said that Mr. Barrett did not carry for the London Brick Co. until March or April 1967. His explanation was that this was because of the credit squeeze. They were stock-piling bricks and he could not get "on their list".

He alleged: "You have here, effectively, a carrier who takes over a business, works very substantially outside the geographical area of his normal user, and then, later in the same year, asks the LA to double his fleet. You would have thought that the sort of application he would have made would have been one to put his house in order, explaining to the LA that he had not complied with his normal user. But he asked the LA, "Please rubber-stamp what I have done".

Miss Elizabeth Havers, for Mr. Barrett, said that the LA was quite right to take the line he did take in relation to the improper operation outside the normal user.

Mr. Barrett was, in fact, a new entrant to the business of public haulage. There was a certain distinction to be drawn between the operator of long standing who deliberately transgressed the law, knowing full well what he was doing, and the new entrant who might not fully understand what was meant by "normal user".

There was nothing to show that a letter Mr. Barrett wrote on March 28 was the first letter he sent to the London Brick Co. She was asking the Tribunal to assume it was the last of a line of letters written by Mr. Barrett in trying to get on their list.

It was inconceivable, said Miss Havers, that Mr. Barrett would have bought a business with a perfectly steady brick operation and just do something else. There must have been something very strong to put him on to other work. He was more than concerned about not getting on the London Brick Co's. list. It was an extremely serious business for a small man who had bought a business to find that he had to face a period when he had no work from the London Brick Co.

It was a strong case for the LA's discretion—the Main reason for his exercise of leniency. Mr. Barrett had no choice but to change to Superior. He took a course of action which, although not entirely proper, was very understandable, after he had offered his services to the London Brick Co., who turned him down.

Miss Havers said that Mr. Barrett got on to the London Brick Co's. list on April 5 last year, and did such work for them as he was able to do without giving up Superior International, who by that time had come to rely on him.

She said there was a need for goods to be carried and part of that work was properly within Mr. Barrett's normal user. No complaint could be made about that.

The seven appellants were: Knowles (Transport), Ltd., Wimblington; Manchett Transport, Warboys; Contractors (Peterborough), Ltd.; Yaxley; J. W. Richards, Haddenham; R. H. Palmer, Wimblington; H. Kingham and Son, Doddington; and Prime Godfrey's Sons, Ltd., Swavesey.


comments powered by Disqus