Weight Changes : "Tribunal Must Make the Eventual Decision"
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Transport Tribunal will have to make a decision in the controversy about changes in the carrying capacity of vehicles during the currency of a licence. This was stated at Hanky, last week, by Mr. W. P. James, West Midland Licensing Authority, when he refused to vary a B licence held by the Sandford Hill Haulage Co., Ltd., Longton, Staffs (The Commercial Motor, February 20).
He said he attached 'great importance to the question of whether an alteration to a vehicle which substantially increased its carrying capacity should be dealt with by a licence variation on the ground that it was no longer the same vehicle. The only yardstick recognized by the 1933 Road Traffic Act was unladen weight, so the whole question would eventually have to be settled by the Tribunal.
Sandford Hill Haulage wanted to replace a 3-tons 16-cwt. four-wheeler by a six-wheeler of 41 tons. Their managing director, Mr. Hayes, told Mr. James that the maximum carrying capacity of the vehicle was originally 7+ tons, but alterations had increased this by I ton, and up to 9 tons 12 cwt. had actually been carried.
Extra Earnings For the six-wheeler, if granted, the maximum load would be 10 tons, said Mr. Hayes. It was true that the alteration had resulted in £600 more being earned in ,the past year.
Mr. James said the question to be decided was whether the difference in carrying capacity of 71 tons to 10 tons could be justified. Either there must be evidence of demand for a bigger vehicle or the replacement would have to be a vehicle of the original unladen weight.
Mr. G. C. Tinsdill, for the company. submitted that if unladen weight was the test of capacity it should be borne in mind that a vehicle of 3 tons 16 cwt. had been operated for 12 months with the Licensing Authority's knowledge.
Increased Payload Mr. James said he would accept the alteration although it had considerably increased the payload. A replacement would, however, be granted only for a vehicle not exceeding the present weight or thereabouts.
To this, Mr. Hayes protested that the new vehicle had cost the company £2,600, had been awaiting collection for six weeks and was already painted in their colours.
Mr. James replied that they had been given the opportunity to call customer evidence but had elected not to do so. If they felt aggrieved there was machinery for appeal.
ROAD DEBATE NEXT WEEK
I-1 A DEBATE in the House of Commons
on the current road programme and the need for urban motorways is to be initiated next Friday by Mr. Ernest Davies (Lab., Enfield East).