Bedevilled by Trunking and Tramping Terms
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN application by Charles Alexander and Partners (Transport) Ltd., Aberdeen, for an addition of three vehicles on B licence, was refused by the Scottish deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. A. B. Birnie, in a continued hearing at Aberdeen, although a short-term licence for two of the vehicles was granted.
The existing licence was for two artics, with conditions: "Goods for collection and delivery on trunk services in Scotland and • England, within the city of Aberdeen."
Six witnesses spoke in support of the application and told the deputy Authority of late deliveries and a general falling off of the good service once provided by the applicant, and they considered that Alexander's service was being sorely pushed.
It was disclosed in evidence that although the condition attached to the licence covered only goods carried on trunk vehicles, the applicant had been carrying goods to and from tramping vehicles and goods that had been carried
to the company's depot by subcontractors.
Mr. Charles Alexander, managing director of the applicant company, said that in his view there was no difference between trunk and tramp vehicles and he submitted that their descriptions were just words that had grown into the haulage industry.
For the only objector, British Railways; Mr. D. Brown submitted that there could be no doubt in the deputy Authority's mind as to the misuse of the licence. The applicant, he said, had tried to meet the requirements as laid down by the Transport Tribunal in its decision on the Munro Transport case, but had failed miserably to meet the required standard of evidence.
In giving his decision, Mr. Birnie said that the case had been bedevilled by the meaning of trunk and tramp vehicles. He had to bear in mind the fact that the licence condition did not cover the use to be made of the vehicles and hoped that an early application would he made to put this in order.