Drawn-out Applications Should Be Republished
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WEST MIDLAND L.A. RAISES MATTER WHICH HAS CAUSED A GREAT DEAL OF CONTROVERSY IN LICENSING CIRCLES
WHEN Mr. John Else, the West Midland Licensing Authority, publicly admitted VV in his crowded Birmingham courtroom last week that he had made a mistake in granting a short-term licence to a Ludlow haulier, Mrs. E. A. Amos, in connection with the carriage of tree roots and English round timber, he raised a matter which I have often heard discussed in the corridors of licensing courts up and down the country—is it realistic to allow applications to drag on, month after month, without considering the possibility of republication or at least introducing fresh evidence about the case immediately prior to a decision being given?
The case Mr. Else was dealing with is as good an example as any. Mrs. Amos (her husband actually runs the business) completed and forwarded her application form to the Licensing Authority's office some fifteen months ago. It was subsequently published in "Applications and Decisions" and attracted several objectors including the British Transport Commission in the form of British Road Services and British Railways.
A public inquiry was held at Birmingham a little more than a year ago, on July 18, 1962, when, because of a lack of clear, constructive evidence, Mr. Else adjourned the application and granted a short-term B licence for a period of three months.
When the hearing was continued last week, Mr. Norman Carless, for Mrs. Amos. pointed out that there was confusion in everyone's minds as to which objectors were still, in fact, objecting to the application because, he understood, certain private operators had now withdrawn, as also had B.R.S. and British Railways.
No Transcript Unfortunately, no shorthand transcript of the previous hearing had been made, and notes taken by the Authority and his clerk, and also by a representative of British Railways, gave no clear indication of whether, in 'fact, B.R.S. had "pulled out ". Mr. Else decided that he would continue the case, treating B.R.S. as objectors, pending a shorthand transcript.
It was at this stage that Mr. F. G. Davies, representing the independent objectors, raised the question of whether or not the application should be republished. After referring to the time lag between publication, the first hearing and the adjourned hearing, Mr. Davies said it was apparent that memories concerning the case were " rough " and, whilst appreciating that there was nothing in the Act about a limit on the period from the date of the application to the hearing date, "surely," he suggested,
n16
"with specialized traffic of this sort, having regard to the passage of time, there might be other operators who would be interested in the application. In short," he continued. "I suggest a republication."
Mr. Else remarked that when he had seen the papers the previous evening he had been "most alarmed " to find that the matter had been going on for so long.
'Made a Mistake' "It is clear to me that I made a mistake in this matter, in the sense that I granted a short-term licence for three months and did not state a lime in which that grant should be taken up." Although he did not say so at the time, what he had had in mind, he continued, was that the licence would be taken up within the next week or so, and then when the licence had expired the matter could have been dealt with within some three or four months, instead of 15.
He was inclined to agree with Mr. Davies that the case should be started de novo, he said, and invited Mr. Carless to address him about this and explain, if he could, why the short-term licence which was granted on July 30, 1962, was not taken up until March 18, 1963.
The difficulty, Mr. Carless explained, was in getting vehicles ready for the road. And then the bad weather of the winter intervened and the cost of taxing vehicles, etc., had all helped towards the factor that the vehicles were not operated until the following March—eight months after the grant.
Decided to Republish When he was told that there were to be no further witnesses in the application, but only figures to be put in, Mr. Else decided to republish the application and, in the meantime, continued the shortterm licence.
The above described application is, perhaps, an exception, and it is not often that one finds a Licensing Authority so handsomely admitting, publicly, a mistake.
Unfortunately, though, it is not unusual for cases, for one reason or another, to be adjourned—sometimes again and again—and to drag on over a period of months. It might well be that an application, genuinely made because of a shortage of vehicles required to carry goods for a particular customer, can, after a few months become unnecessary, perhaps because of a sudden depression, or for other reasons.
Only recently, in Darlington, the Northern Licensing Authority dealt with an application made, I understand, more than 12 months ago by R.A.H. Transporters Ltd., which had been adjourned pending the determination of an appeal that was then pending before the Transport Tribunal. (An appeal has since been lodged with the Court of Appeal.) One of the objectors pointed out to me that the delay had caused him considerable embarrassment. At the time of the application he had objected because he had considerable vehicle availability. But now, 12 months later, there had been a change in the industry that he and the applicant carried for, and he now found that he, too, required additional vehicles. He found himself objecting, on the one hand, to on application for the carriage of steel, pleading vehicle availability; on the other hand, he was applying for additional tonnage because his own fleet was now overworked!
Months Delay In other traffic areas, too, there are cases that do not reach the " hearing " stage until months after the original application has been lodged. At the moment, in the Yorkshire Area, an application by a Hull applicant, which has been listed several times for hearing, nas still not been heard. It may be that, in this case also, when the application finally comes on for hearing, witnesses who were asked to support the applicant might now embarrass him and lose the application for him.
Perhaps Mr. Else's republication remedy in the Amos application could be followed by other Authorities—in fairness both to applicant and objectors— when an application hearing extends beyond a period of, say, three months because, in this "up and down" business of haulage, anything can happen at any time, as many an operator has discovered to his own detriment.