1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140 
TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL IN LONDON
Page 15
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Transport Tribunal, sitting in London on Tuesday, dismissed an appeal by Biscoe Transport Ltd., of Ipswich, against the refusal of the Eastern Licensing Authority to vary an A licence by adding seven specially constructed heavy-duty tippers and a .drawbar trailer.
For the appellants, Mr. M. H. JacksonLipkin said that his clients operated eight vehicles under Contract A licence for Roadworks (1952) Ltd. Roadworks, themselves, had a fleet of C vehicles and, during the hearing of the application, they gave an undertaking to surrender nine C-licensed tippers if the Biscoe application succeeded. Roadworks also undertook to give up its Contract A licences "as soon as possible ".
After an adjournment and discussion with the objectors, an offer was made— if the Licensing Authority thought that was the better way to do it—to reverse the procedure and give up the Contract A licences first and the C licences later.
" Unhappily," continued Mr. JacksonLipkin, "either the Authority did not hear the evidence or he misunderstood it on that point." The Authority, Mr. Jackson-Lipkin contended, thought there was a complete reversal of the evidence by the customer. He ignored the fact that the customer had no transport facilities in a satisfactory form and that the customer wanted to change.
Giving judgment, Mr. G. D. Squibb, the president, said that it was a little surprising that, after the adjournment, the applicant had changed his approach. Such a complete change of front in so short a time seemed to indicate That the reason put forward for wanting the• variation could not be accepted as being the real one.
"It seems to us, having regard to what was said before the adjournment, that the applicant's chief concern was to get an A licence at any price and on any terms," he added. Since the basis of the application seemed to have disappeared, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the Licensing Authority was right hi his decision to refuse the grant.
Allowed in Part
IT was astonishing that the West Mid
land deputy Licensing Authority had overlooked that a haulier had applied for a B licence when two of the five vehicles concerned had been on Contract A for less than a year, said Mr. R. M. Yorke at the Transport Tribunal in London on Wednesday.
He was appearing for the Transport Holding Company, which was appealing against a grant to Potters Service Station (Saltley) Ltd. which gave Potters a B licence to carry motor vehicle parts for three Midlands suppliers—Burman and Son, Crane's Screw Cold Grip Co. Ltd., and Diamond Screw and Cutter Co.—to Ford factories at Dagenham, Basildon, Southampton, Doncaster and Liverpool.
The grant was made contingent on the surrender of the Contract A licence for the same five veh:cles. Mr. Yorke said there was no appeal against the quantum of the grant but against the addition of two of the named customers.
Mr. M. H. Jackson-Lipkin. for Potters. said: "There is nothing anywhere that says you cannot grant an A licence where the contract has run for less than a year."
In his judgment, Mr. G. D. Squibb, the president, said that the appeal was against the inclusion in the grant of the Crane's Strew and the Diamond Sarew companies. The evidence relating to these companies was that Potters had been accepting work from them and sub-contracting it. Mr. Potter had given evidence that the sub-contractor wanted to give up that work. The sub-contractor had been used only to carry goods for these two companies to Ford's works at Dagenham and Basildon.
The Tribunal had conic to the conclusion that Potters should be allowed to carry goods for these two companies, but only to the Basildon and Dagenham destinations. The appeal would therefore be allowed in that respect. The Tribunal did not alter the grant in respect of Burman's.