AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Tribunal Define Licensing Duties Under 1953 Act

26th February 1954, Page 129
26th February 1954
Page 129
Page 129, 26th February 1954 — Tribunal Define Licensing Duties Under 1953 Act
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?

A DECISION that may be the beginning of case law under the rm. Transport Act, 1953, was published last week by the Transport [Appeal] Tribunal. It defines the fundamental duties of a Licensing Authority under Section 9 (3) (b) of that Act in considering whether existing facilities are suitable.

The case is probably the first to hinge principally on the rates to be charged, but the Tribunal have not reached any conclusion on the question.

In overruling an objection by the Iritish Transport Commission and [lowing Messrs. A. H. Gore, of Clutton, ibmerset, to add a 4-ton tipper to their feet of 14 operated under an A licence; Ne Huntley. Western Deputy Licensing kuthority, did so partly because he bought the facilities which had been )rovided by Messrs. Gore were "somehat more efficient or sellable or edentate " than those supplied by the 2ommission, but mainly because he hought the charges to be made by dessrs. Gore were less than those of he Commission.

" Having reached these conclusions," ay the Tribunal, "it was not of course, tecessary for him to consider whether uch facilities as existed were in excess tf requirements' within the meaning ff Section 11 (2) of the 1933 Act."

The Commission appealed against dr. Huntley's decision.

Law Misconstnied

Mr. Huntley appeared to have misonstrued Section 9 (3) (b) of the 1953 Set. "What a Licensing Authority is a do under this provision when he is considering whether existing transport acilities are to be treated as suitable' s to take into account any difference in he matter of efficiency, etc., between he existing facilities at the date of the pplication and the facilities which the pplicant will provide if his application s granted," say the Tribunal.

Mr. Huntley's error was to compare he efficiency, etc., of one part of the xisting facilities provided by Messrs. ;ore with that of another part of the xisting facilities offered by the Cornsission. He ought to have compared he efficiency, etc., of the existing acilities with the prospective efficiency, tc., of the facilities which would be eovided by Messrs. Gore if their pplication were granted.

As a fact, the Tribunal finds that here was no evidence to show that the :ommission's facilities were inferior in uality to those provided by Messrs. iore.

They also doubt whether information vailable as to "charges made" in :sped of "the existing facilities" and s to those "to be made" in respect f the facilities which Messrs. Gore eauld provide if their application were ranted, was sufficiently precise and full enable any really reliable comparison be made between them.

The Tribunal have not found it ecessary to express any concluded pinion on this matter, because, assum

ing in favour of the Commission that the existing facilities were to be treated as being suitable in quality in all respects, they did not discharge the onus of showing that those facilities were in excess of requirements.

The Tribunal express the view that having regard „to the inevitable irregularities in the demand for tippers, unempkryment to the extent of about 12 per cent of the total carrying capacity during a period of 49 days is not by itself sufficient to show the facilities to be in excess of requirements.

The appeal was dismissed. The hearing was reported in The Commercial Motor on February' 5 and February 19.

[Section 9 (3) (b) states: " In considering whether existing transport facilities are to be treated as suitable, the Licensing Authority shall have regard to the relative efficiency, reliability and adequacy of the existing facilities at the date of the application and the facilities which the applicant will provide if his application is granted, and to all other relevant considerations, including, to such extent as may in all the circumstances appear proper, the charges made and to be made in respect of those facilities respectively."]

SCOTTISH SUGGESTIONS ON FARES DETAILS of representations made to him by the Scottish Counties of Cities Association were given by the Minister of Transport in the House of Commons last week.

The Association suggested that fares on municipal road passenger services should be free from any control except that directly imposed by Parliament in private Acts. A deputation later visited him and put forward modified proposals. These are to be considered.

The Minister told Miss Ward that the Cost for 1951-52 of the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee and its area committees was about £11,511.

PRIVATE ENTERPRISE ONE UP D ECENTLY, British Road Services were unable to handle an 80-ton

export order for Liverpool. Direct Motor Services, Ltd., Sheffield, a private-enterprise haulage pool, were asked to do the work. Within two hours 12 vehicles were marshalled. The order was loaded and they were on the way to Liverpool the same night.


comments powered by Disqus