AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

B.T.C. In Strong Position

4th March 1960, Page 66
4th March 1960
Page 66
Page 69
Page 66, 4th March 1960 — B.T.C. In Strong Position
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?

By G. Duncan Jewell

THE railways must be well satisfied with the Transport Tribunal's decision in the McKelvie appeal (" The Commercial Motor," February 12). McKelvie argued that the British Transport Commission's services were not suitable because they involved double handling, and because rail rates were higher than theirs.

The Tribunal's remarks, however, apply whether anyone's rates are higher or lower than those of a competitor. Since the railways have been able to compete on price with hauliers, they have often quoted charges below the economic level for road transport. The decision must therefore please the railways especially in this context.

In the Tribunal's view, it' is impossible properly to consider rtes unless there is clear evidence of the prices to be charged, and of the terms on which competitive facilities are to be afforded.

Comparisons relating to price may be misleading, and the fact that one price is lower than another may well be more than offset by obligations undertaken in return for a lower price. These may be much less favourable to the customer than those undertaken in return for a higher price. .

The Tribunal .found that the evidence available on the question of rates was far too slight to make possible any useful comparison between the road and rail charges. There seems to be little hope that hauliers will be able to combat rail objections by raising questions of rates.

Dead Letter

The practical impossibility of proving allegations of unfair competition by rate-cutting renders that portion of the 1953 Act which empowers a Licensing Authority to take into consideration questions of rate almost a dead letter.

Another interesting point was the submission by McKelvie that because the B.T.C. were not already doing the work, they could not be said, under Section 11 (2) of the 1433 Act, to be offering transport facilities.

The Tribunal ruled this wrong in law, and pointed out that if it were upheld, a hP.ulier having idle vehicles at either E24 end of a given route, and anxious to carry traffic which an applicant proposed to transport, would not be allowed to lodge an objection.

Many of the pronouncements of the Tribunal seem to be at variance with present practice in the Traffic Areas. In the McKelvie case, the wishes of the customers, Marshall and Anderson, Ltd., Motherwell, to employ the company were not sufficient to offset the objections.

However, in a recent application in the Northern Area, H. L. Walker, Ltd., Thornaby-on-Tees, were granted additional vehicles solely on the evidence of figures and supporting letters from customers.

Mr. G. W. Duncan, Northern Deputy Licensing Authority, considered that objections, both by the B.T.C. and a number of independent hauliers, should not weigh against a customer's right to choose between road and rail, and that he was also entitled to decide to whom he would entrust the work.

Losing Force The dictum that the grant of applications solely on this type of evidence is wrong because the evidence cannot be put to the test seems to be losing its force, for, in addition to the H. L. Walker grant, Siddle C. Cook, Ltd., Consett, were also granted additional vehicles without customer evidence.

Circumstances in the Cook case were peculiar in that it was alleged that important customers would not send witnesses because they did not want to prejudice their relations with British Road Services and the railways.

It was strongly denied by the solicitor for the B.T.C. that any pressure had been brought to bear to prevent witnesses attending.

In giving it Mr. Duncan referred to the Tufnell appeal, in which it was stated that letters of complaint, as distinct from letters inspired by an applicant and written specially for the purpose of a hearing, had a certain value as evidence.

The Licensing Authorities have a strong case for taking action against those commercial concerns who are discourteous enough to refuse to send witnesses to support applications by refusing them out of hand.

If these industries really need additional transport, they will quickly change their policies, but it may well be that in some cases there is no real need for increased facilities and the refusal of such applications would prevent an excess of transport being created.

Unsatisfactory Decisions

THE decisions of the North Western and Yorkshire Licensing Authorities that false statements on application forms (made to enable the conversion of platform vehicles into tankers by F. Chappell, Ltd., Batley, and Bulk Liquid Transport Ltd.) should be penalized only by temporary suspension of certain vehicles cannot have been satisfactory to the objectors.

Two factors probably played a large part in these decisions: (1) The unfortunate advice given that increases in unladen weight were permitted without informing the Authority, and (2) that there is still a great demand for bulk haulage.

Changes in management no doubt also had their effect, not only in the withdrawal of certain objections, but in the attitude of the Authorities.

It remains questionable,. however, whether these considerations should allow the retention of vehicles gained irregularly.

Common Sense Needed

OBSERVATIONS by Mr. I. H. A. Randolph, Yorkshire Deputy Licensing Authority, when giving his decision in an application by Cross Roads Transport (see page 131) give food for thought whether certain decisions of the Tribunal do not err by being too pedantic.

Mr. Randolph blew a breath of common sense into the proceedings. He observed that it was a practical business proposition, when a haulier _with a mixed fleet under A and B licences was having difficulty in meeting the demands of his customers because the B-licence conditions were not sufficiently flexible, that he should be entitled to transfer the B vehicles to A licence.

He pointed out that the difficulties inherent in a mixed fleet were obvious, and that customers left stranded, even though their haulier had a vehicle available, but made unusable by restrictions, must regard it as an "Alice in Wonderland" set-up.

Despite his views, Mr. Randolph was constrained to refuse the application because the Tribunal took the view in the Frank Phillips (Haulage) appeal, in which he had granted a B-to-A switch in similar circumstances, that no such grant should be made if B conditions could be framed to meet the circum stances. "

In the Phillips ease, added Mr. Randolph, if the company had succeeded in their application for an A licence, the normal user would have been more restricted than the actual B licence eventually granted.

Mr. Randolph felt that he was unable to fly in the face of the Tribunal's previous decision, but in view of their reiterated statements that each case must be considered on its merits, and no pronouncements in a particular case should be regarded as binding on other cases, he could well have thrown the ball back to the Tribunal. They have more than once given decisions which appear to conflict with previous views they have expressed.

Hauliers Have Only Themselves to Blame

rrHE grant of a new A licence for seven eight-wheelers to Wilfred White's Transport, Ltd., Tow Law, without a public inquiry by Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, Northern Licensing Authority, has caused considerable feeling among independent hauliers. Nevertheless, it appears that they have only themselves to blame, for the only objection to the application was by the B.T.C., and this was withdrawn at the road and mit negotiating committee. It was then dealt with and granted by the Authority in chambers.

The essence of the application was proof of need outwards, and the necessity of being able to bring back return loads. This was taken up by Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw at Newcastle upon Tyne in February when Mr. S. Cook sought to transfer a special-type vehicle from B to A licence.

Mr. Wardlaw contended that the principle that if a haulier were allowed to carry goods outwards on proof of need he was entitled to carry return loads was sound in law, and that this had recently been reaffirmed by the Tribunal.

After Mr. Hanlon had pointed out that this would mean that any Cor B-licence holder would be entitled to ask for return loads, Mr. Wardlaw reminded him that he had recently made such a grant to White without even a public inquiry.

Granting the application, Mr. Hanlon commented that there were circumstances in which a B licence could be of just as much value-as an A licence, having regard to the importance now placed on declarations of normal user. Special-type vehicles were expensive to run and should be operated as economically as possible.

The general acceptance of such a principle -could be serious to all A-licensed hauliers, but it seems -that far too many of the independents are still looking to the B.T.C. to act as watchdogs.. Even when objections are made, by far the greater number are ill-prepared and do not carry the weight they should.

Smoke Signals

Irregular activities by Clicensed vehicles are causing concern in North Wales. These include the carriage of coal in factors' vehicles under hire to other factors who have contracts withthe National Coal Board.

This sort of irregularity is extremely difficult to detect as it is interspersed with the normal carriage of coal by way of the licence-holders' own business.

Other complaints include the carriage of loads for hire or reward when returning from South Wales; and approaches to contract-A operators to carry return loads under C-hire. Although it is arguable whether this, in itself, "is irregular, the proper' employment of detvers would make legal operation, impracticable.

Although under Section 5 of the Goods Vehicles (Licences and Prohibitions) Regulations, no vehicle under suspension may be specified in any other licence, there are rumours that this ruse has been successfully adopted.

Interested parties are unable to discover which vehicles are put on a contract-A licence by referring to Applications and Decisions, because it is not the practice to publish index numbers of vehicles concerned.

There also appears to be some doubt whether a decision not to grant a licence until a specified date amounts to suspension as defined in the regulations.

The move by Mr. F. Williamson, North Western Licensing Authority, to control increases in unladen weight during the currency of licences has been well received by hauliers.

Opinions have been expressed that a countrywide plan on similar lines at an earlier stage would have prevented many of the widespread difficulties encountered in dealing with special-A licences.

Doubts are being expressed whether the temporary suspension of A-licensed vehicles as a punishment for irregularities by large concerns has any real effect.

A simple method of getting round this type of penalty would be to put the vehicles on contract-A licence with a substantial customer during the period of suspension.

PASSENGER

Linking of Express Services Attacked

L'OLLOW1NG a suggestion by the I Minister of Transport that the proper time to raise the question of the linking of express licences was when they came up for renewal, W. Robinson and Sons (Great Harwood), Ltd., objected to the renewal of the licence for the joint BlackpoolManchester express service of Ribble Motor Services, Ltd., Lancashire United Transport, Ltd., and the North Western Road Car Co., Ltd., at the end of January.

Robinson contended that the linking of Manchester Nottingham, and Nottingham-Great Yarmouth express services with Blackpool-Manchester had created a new unlicensed through service. Until this was created, the contest had been between Robinson and the railways.

Many applications for extension of period excursions and express licences by Robinson had been turned down to protect the railways, but if unauthorized express linking were allowed, competition would be unchecked..

The express companies, however, have a strong argument in the importance of these services to the public. It is considered that it would be unreasonable to require passengers to alight " at the same bus station from which the next journey will be made. '

The North Western Traffic Commissioners have reserved decision until the result of the appeal against their decision in the Tyne-Tees-Mersey Pool application to link with Llandudno has been announced by the Minister. .

One suggestion put forward is that if the interests of the public are paramount, the best method of controlling linking of this sort, where there is unlimited duplication available, would be to grant additional facilities to the objectors.

Running into Trouble

AN attempt by Ribble to get the best of both worlds by transferring the originating points of their Liverpool excursion licences to their new bus station in the centre of the city, while still retaining the existing points for picking up and setting down, ran into trouble when other excursion operators objected to the application.

It was submitted that the station would be the terminus for stage-carriage, express and excursion services, and that its use would amount to linking these facilities. The Ribble view was that they were bound to lose goodwill if the old points were not retained for at least three years.

Faced with the task of keeping an even balance between the operators and at the same time acting in the public interest, the North Western Traffic Commissioners reserved their decision.


comments powered by Disqus