Tribunal Describe Authority's Letter as Very Puzzling
Page 64
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A LETTER from the office of the PI West Midland Licensing Authority was described as "very puzzling," " astonishing " and "most extraordinary by various members of the Transport Tribunal at a hearing in London last week.
They were hearing the appeal of F. 0., Rainbow, Ltd., of Albert Street, Rugby, against refusal by the Licensing Authority to enlarge their licence conditions to allow them to carry household removals as required.. At present they are limited to a 60-mile radius of Rugby.
Respondents to the appeal were the British Transport Commission, and W. G. Goddard and Sons, Ltd., of Newland Street, Rugby.
Mr. Frederick George Rainbow, managing director of the appellant company, house furnishers, who put the case on their . behalf, said that in 1957, in order to get a licence for this type of Work, he entered into the purchase of an ex-B.T.C. vehicle, formerly based at
E22 Sheffield, for which there was a special A licence.
He received the letter from the Licensing Authority's office • when he sought the transfer of the licence. The letter said if he were prepared to give the Licensing Authority an assurance that the vehicle would be used mainly for long-distance household removals, he (the Authority) would be prepared to grant a special A licence.
Unfortunately Worded Sir Hubert Hull, president of the Tribunal, said the letter was unfortunately worded. The Authority's only power in this respect was to grant or refuse tile licence, and the only ground on which he could refuse it was that it would not serve the same area as when in the hands of the B.T.C.
Mr. Rainbow said he was disgusted by the letter. He could not .give the assurance, because he did not know over what distance his customers would require
removals, so he did not buy the vehicle.
Mr. Rainbow said his company had been house furnishers since 1929. Recently they opened a retail furniture shop which had brought a far greater call for removals outside their present 6a0-mile area. He would like to be free to operate equally with his competitors, but it was difficult to bring evidence of dissatisfied customers because he could not carry out work for them over a greater distance. Sir Hubert said that by Act of Parliament the Tribunal must not give more facilities than were really required. There was no proof here that the services were inadequate. It appeared Mr. Rainbow was suggesting that all an applicant needed to say was that he wanted a licence to compete with those already operating.
Dismissing the appeal Sir Hubert said the Tribunal could find no justification for the extension of the furniture removal side of Mr. Rainbow's business beyond the present 60-mile limit.