AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

" Unfair " Discrimination Alleged

3rd August 1956, Page 33
3rd August 1956
Page 33
Page 33, 3rd August 1956 — " Unfair " Discrimination Alleged
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?

FARE increases granted to Huddersfield Joint Omnibus Committee in April discriminated unfairly against Holmfirth passengers, said Mr. D. H. Nicholson, clerk to Holmfirth Urban District Council, when they appealed against the Yorkshire Licensing Authority's decision at Huddersfield last week.

Mr. Nicholson said the decision did not accord with evidence produced. It had been stated that wage increases since fares were last raised in February, 1953, had added £37,350 per year to the costs of the undertaking, whilst the estimated deficit for 1956-57 was £22,400, if the application were not granted.

Additional revenue from the proposed increases was estimated at £35,000. That represented 3iper cent. more income than the undertaking needed, he said. Evidence had been called for Holmfirth Council that the additional revenue was likely to be much greater than £35,000, and it ,was submitted that that evidence had been either ignored or not appreciated by the Authority.

The increases in the Holmfirth area represented 24 per cent., and on certain other routes lower fares had been asked for and granted. If those fares were sufficient to meet costs, then the fares in the Holmfirth area were excessive.

If the lower fares were not sufficient, then passengers using the services in the Holmfirth area were being charged more than excessive fares in order to subsidize unremunerative services in other districts, Whichever was correct, there was unfair discrimination against passengers using the Holmfirth services.

For the respondents, Mr. H. C. Beaumont submitted that the inspector could not consider or report to the Minister whether the charges were excessive or not, as that was outside the scope of his authority under the Act.

The undertaking operated in an area covered by eight local authorities, five of whom had not objected at the hearing of the application. Except on routes operated jointly with other companies, the fare scale was uniform, he said.

Mr.. Beaumont added that since the increases were granted, receipts had supported the figure of £35,000.


comments powered by Disqus