Passenger pedantries
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I REFER to an article in your issue of June 14 entitled "Tour firm caught out by the missing words". This was a report of the cancellation of a public hearing before the Traffic Commis sioners of my company's application for a variation of licences. In the opening paragraph of the article you stated that the case was postponed because of my firm's failure to include two important words in the original application.
I wish to point out to you that the mistake which occurred was in no way the fault of Cotter Tours. When we made the application we clearly stated that the vehicle allowance was to be one vehicle per tour and this fact was acknowledged by the Traffic Commissioners at the hearing. The words "per tour"' were omitted by the Commissioners' office.
We noticed this and contacted the Traffic Commissioners office to point it out. We were advised that it was normal practice to publish applications using this shorthand method and there was no need for any changes.
We also noted that there were other applications which had been published in exactly the same way. In particular, there was one in exactly the same publication from the Scottish Bus Group which had asked for 16 different tours and mentioned only four vehicles, the words "-per tour" being omitted.
T. WILSON, Hope St, Glasgow G2