AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Transport Tribunal in London

7th December 1962
Page 45
Page 45, 7th December 1962 — Transport Tribunal in London
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?

Agreement on Slaters' Application

AN appeal by Slaters Transport Ltd., of Caulklands Quarry, Thornton-leDale, Yorks, against a decision of the Yorkshire Licensing Authority was allowed by the Transport Tribunal in London last week after the parties announced that they had reached an agreement.

Originally, there were 35 objectors to the appeal, including the British Transport Commission.

The company had asked the Licensing Authority for a B licence for 28 vehicles, four of them tankers and the remainder tipping vehicles.

Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, for Slaters Transport, told the Tribunal that after •a lengthy hearing, the Authority had allowed the company a limited B licence for the tankers, subject to conditions restricting them to the carriage of goods for Slater and Co. (Limestone) Ltd., of Thornton, and for the 24 tipping vehicles restricting them to the carriage of goods for Slater and Co. (Limestone) Ltd., and Forcett Limestone Ltd., of Knaresborough.

Slaters Transport, said Mr, Campbell Wardlaw, was a wholly owned subsidiary of Slater and Co. (Limestone) Ltd., as was Forcett Limestone Ltd., and the effect of the Authority's decision was to give the company nothing at all, because it could, as far as 24 tipping vehicles were concerned, work for Slater and Co. (Limestone) and for Forcett Limestone under a C licence.

He said that discussions had now taken place between the appellants and the objectors and terms had been agreed.

The Tribunal was asked to make an order for a limited B licence, subject to a condition restricting the vehicles to the carriage of goods for Slater and Co. (Limestone) Ltd., Forcett Limestone Ltd., and for A. Braithwaite and Co. Ltd. and Swale Sand and Gravel Ltd., both Of Knaresborough, within 100 miles of base.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the agreed terms.

L.A. to Reconsider School Meals Bids

THE Northern deputy Licensing Authority will have to give further consideration to a decision granting an application by a Bishop Middleham haulier for a licence to provide a school meals delivery service, the Transport Tribunal decided.

The Tribunal considered an appeal by Mr. D. Grierson, of Fishburn, Stocktonon-Tees, against the variation of a licence held by Mr. William Henning, of Church Street, Bishop Middleharn, by the addi

tion of a van for the delivery of school meals within eight miles of Newton Eyecliffe. .

Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, for Mr. Grierson, said that Mr. Henning tendered

for the delivery service and his tender was accepted by Durham County Council.

Mr. Grierson, who had also provided a service to local schools, tendered for the same contract. He had previously held the contract for two years and had the necessary licence, but his tender, £2 5s. a day, was higher than that offered by Mr. Henning.

The County Council accepted the lowest tender and as a result Mr. Grierson was left with a vehicle authorized to do the work when there was none forthcoming. It was his contention that the variation of Mr. Henning's licence created an excess of facilities in that particular area and should not have been allowed.

Mr. Campbell Wardlaw read a letter from the County Council pointing out to would-be contractors that tenders would not be considered unless submitted by a person holding a current B licence. He said that it was quite clear that Mr.

Henning submitted his tender and then sought to obtain the nemsary authority to operate his vehicle under a B licence.

There was a complete conflict between the two men. Mr. Grierson said he could not make the service pay at the rate offered by Mr. Henning—£1 M.—but Mr. Henning said he could. .

He emphasized that the County Council should have given evidence at the hearing before the deputy Authority, because of 't this severe conflict" between the two hauliers.

The President of the Tribunal, Mr. D. G. Squibb, Q.C., said that the most satisfactory course would be for the deputy Licensing Authority to have his advantage of hearing the witnesses and reconsidering the matter. If he came to the conclusion that the rate offered by Mr. Henning was uneconomical, then in the Tribunal's view, the proper course would be to refuse the variation. L.A. Was Wrong, Says The Tribunal IN a reserved decision made known last week the Transport Tribunal has allowed an appeal by H. J. Clark of. Wellingborough, whose application to transfer four tipping vehicles from B licence to A licence was refused by the East Midland Licensing Authority. • In its decision, the Tribunal criticized the Licensing Authority's statement that he (the L.A.) could not think that the legislature intended that a B licensee should be able to transfer to A licence upon the sole ground that he would be able to use his vehicles to carry unspecified return loads, thereby being able to keep his rates down for the benefit of his existing customers.

• The Authority, continued the Tribunal, attached the wrong importance to the fact that the appellant already held a B licence. The appellant was now only a haulier, and his application fell to be considered on that footing. Normally the appropriate licence for a haulier who does not intend to carry goods in connection with his own trade or business was an A licence.

To Be Reheard

A N application by a Birmingham

haulage contractor for the renewal of a licence for one of his lorries and for the variation of another licence for two others, was sent back for rehearing to the West Midlands Licensing Authority by the Transport Tribunal to allow further evidence to be brought. The contractor, Mr. Gauben Shepherd, of High Street, Quinton, Birmingham, had appealed to the Tribunal against the refusal of his application by the Authority. The British Transport Commission were the sole objectors.

The president said that in the Tribunal's view it was impossible to give a proper decision on the appeal without evidence about Mr. Shepherd's fleet of vehicles as a whole. But as the matter now stood, there was insufficient evidence on which the Licensing Authority could grant the application.


comments powered by Disqus