Not a system to rescue improvident hauliers
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE diametrically opposed views of the North Western deputy Licensing Authorities on applications by a Rochdale haulier led to the appeal by G. Sweeney (Transport) Ltd., of Rochdale, to the Transport Tribunal, said Mr. J. Backhouse in London on Tuesday.
Since 1962, Sweeney had held Contract A licences to carry for Manchester steel stockists, Trafford Park Steel Co. Ltd. In an application heard by Mr. Jolliffe in September 1965 they had applied to add five vehicles and a trailer to the A licence they already held, because Trafford Park Steel was about to merge with the Miles Druce Group—when their contract licence would be inconvenient to operate.
The deputy LA had taken the view that, because a merger was imminent, it was too early to grant Sweeney's request in full and made a grant for one vehicle of 7-1 tons on A licence.
Sweeney's contract was renewed verbally at yearly intervals and at the date of the public inquiry had only a few months to run. The regrouping following the Miles Druce merger was due to take effect in January 1967. In September of this year, therefore, Sweeney renewed its application for five vehicles on A licence and on this occasion was refused by Mr. Newman. Objectors were the Transport Holding Co. (BRS)—who were represented as respondents at the appeal by Mr. J. Lawton.
Mr. Backhouse said that in giving his reasons for refusal the deputy LA took the view that Miles Druce's needs were already met; that BRS had a large traffic flow in the area; that the conversion of the Contract A licence to open A was premature; and that the situation could best be met by operation under a B licence. He added that the tonnage involved was too small to justify the number of vehicles applied for and that the objectors rightly feared abstraction by return-load working.
The deputy LA, said Mr. Backhouse, had turned a blind eye to the effects of the merger, the reorganization of the Miles Druce group transport was complete, the BRS objectors had conceded in evidence that their facilities were not suitable for the carriage of steel, and that there was no evidence to suggest that return-load facilities would abstract objectors' work.
BRS had not produced evidence on return-load availability, and there was a prima facie case for an A licence.
Abstraction the issue For the respondents, Mr. Lawton said that the danger of abstraction was a major issue of the case. Sweeney's earnings from Trafford Park Steel had increased and those from his other A-licence operations were decreasing. His loads were by no means all steel—and he suggested that the original declaration of intent was insufficient.
The deputy LA had had no need to consider the result of the earlier application when one A licence vehicle was granted.
The appellant, he maintained, was seeking to improve his earnings by way of return loads at the expense of other hauliers. The Sweeney contract had ex; pired and the transport was now operated on a short-term licence. If the contract were not renewed, and if the present appeal were lost, it was not the function of the licensing system to rescue improvident hauliers. A B licence was appropriate in this case. Such contract conversions as the present one were causing increasing concern to hauliers.
The Tribunal will give its decision in writing.