AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Lessons from Licensing

9th January 1959, Page 65
9th January 1959
Page 65
Page 66
Page 65, 9th January 1959 — Lessons from Licensing
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?

(1) If the Nature of a Haulage Business Changes Substantially, Tell the Licensing Authority: (2) Meet Force with Force.(3) Check Weights of Special A Vehicles: (4) Prepare

Cases Carefully

By G. Duncan Jewell LOOKING back over the goods licensing field during the past year, the features that immediately come to mind are the controversy over normal user, the increase in the number of public inquiries to consider whether licences should be suspended or revoked, and the problems created by special A licences. These questions are all interconnected, and an appraisal of the past may well assist hauliers who are faced with the expiry of special ,A licences this year.

Probably .t he most important development was the disturbing tendency towards making normal user a strict condition of a public A licence. This stemmed from the Transport Tribunal's written judgment in February on the appeal of C. Knight and Sons, Ltd.. against the West Midland Deputy Licensing Authority's refusal to renew two A licences for three vehicles, because the normal user had been changed.

The Tribunal held that a deliberate departure from a haulier's declared statement of intention when a licence was granted was a sufficient reason for refusing to renew it on the ground of his previous conduct as a carrier of goods. A major change during the currency of a licence should be declared and a new licence applied for, adducing affirmative evidence to prove need. In June, the Tribunal's views were upheld by Lord Goddard, in the Divisional Court, when giving judgment on the Hesketh appeal.

That Declaration

An important point, which does not always seem to be clearly understood, is the Tribunal's view on the statutory form G.V.1A, on which applicants fill in their declaration of intention. The Tribunal have pointed out that the question is divided into two parts: (a) the class or description of goods to be carried. and (b) the districts in, or places between which the vehicles will normally be used.

As " normally " does not enter into the first part of the .question, their interpretation is that the statement of goods to be carried must be precise, and that " normally " refers only to districts and places.

British Railways have taken full advantage of the situation in attempting to tie down hauliers within strict limits, and the use of wide terms now invites objection. "General goods. Great Britain," is no longer acceptable in some areas, and everywhere it is extremely difficult to justify. It must be said, however, that, judging by the light-hearted way in which modifications are accepted, many hauliers over

state their cases, thereby giving the objectors a lever.

In some instances, when pressed by objectors, applicants have given undertakings that no work outside the normal user will be accepted, which, in effect, amounts to the restrictions of a B licence without its compensations. Such undertakings have not been unusual in applications for "maintenance" vehicles., but their growth with regard to regular service vehicles is disturbing.

No public A licence should be granted in such Circumstances, and any haulier who genuinely requires a vehicle for use only within conditions would be well advised to apply for a B licence. A strict condition on an A licence would be extremely difficult to enforce. No prosecution for work done outside normal user would hold water in the courts and, although the matter could be dealt with on renewal or under Section 9(4) of the 1953 Act, proof would be a stumbling block.

Some Licensing Authorities have made it clear that they regard 10-15 per cent. of work outside normal user as legitimate. In Scotland it is common practice to specify normal user as a percentage up to 90 or 95.

When Traffic Changes Changes during the currency of many licences are inevitable, because of fluctuations in the volume and nature of industrial production. Although no percentage of change has been specified by the Tribunal, the wise haulier will notify any major variation to his Licensing Authority.

British Railways' policy with regard to normal user, although of great nuisance value in their fight to obtain fresh traffic, has also been a source of acute embarrassment both to themselves and to British Road Services. B.R.S. have pursued a more moderate policy. Their change-over from free and special A licences to public A licences, whilst generally smooth, ran into trouble both in the north of England and in Scotland.

For their collection and delivery vehicles, the railways applied throughout the country for,.a normal user of "All classes and descriptions of goods within 20 miles, mainly for the collection and delivery of railborne traffic." This was challenged in Northern Scotland.

At the inquiry in Aberdeen more than 50 objectors submitted that the railways were no longer in a privileged position and must justify the need. After the Scottish Deputy Licensing Authority had found that no case was proved for a 20-mile radius they accepted a licence specifying each of 26 bases with the words "and district" added.

In some areas, where private hauliers failed to challenge the normal user, the applications were granted in chambers, but in the North-West and Yorkshire full scale inquiries were held in public. An interesting feature of the applications was the number of railway vehicles which was apparently redundant. In the North-West alone, licences for 80 vehicles and 192 trailers were surrendered. In Scotland, too, the number was large.

B.R.S. (Parcels), Ltd., who originally applied in Northern Scotland for " Mainly parcels/smalls, Great Britain," agreed, after objections had been lodged, to a separate user for each base, according to need. In the Northern Traffic Area an application for "General goods," in specified areas was opposed by 20 hauliers and reduced to "Parcels and smalls."

B.R.S. Limit User

B.R.S. (Pickfords), Ltd., applying for "General goods, mainly furniture, Great Britain," in North Wales. met with an objection inspired by the Road Haulage Association and reduced their terms to "Furniture and household effects, Great Britain."

The lesson to be learned from these proceedings is that the nationalized undertakings are just as vulnerable as the private haulier and if opposition were met with opposition in all areas, a much more reasonable attitude might be adopted. Normal-user restriction might devalue many haulage businesses—a factor of great importance to those who bought at the highest prices on denationalization.

Towards the end of the year the spotlight was thrown on another n21

aspect of British Transport Commission policy, when an application by B.R.S. (Pickfords), Ltd., for an A licence for three 4,000-gal. tankers was refused by the Scottish Licensing Authority, Mr. W. F. Quin. It was submitted that it was the company's policy not to operate vehicles on contract, but to run them all on A licences" so that, when the big oil companies could not keep the tankers going, they could be put on other work.

The only evidence offered was a five-year contract with an oil company. The view was put forward that a document showing a binding undertaking was sufficient evidence and that it was a common misconception that evidence must be given by a witness. Mr. Quin was told that licences had been granted in other areas on similar evidence, and when the application was refused it was immediately announced that contract A licences would be sought.

Sauce for the Gander

The strength of the opposition that private hauliers would provoke if they adopted such a policy can well be imagined. There is also the grave danger that A-licence vehicles used on contract could be switched elsewhere and contract licences taken out, or the threat of such a switch could be employed to stifle objections.

In March, special A activities came into the public eye when the NorthWestern Licensing Authority, Mr. F. Williamson, held a public inquiry into assignments to a Yorkshire tanker company, involving alterations in the weights of the vehicles after their conversion from " flats " into tankers.

The applicants had re-registered vehicles with the local taxation officer, after weight increases, but had not notified the Licensing Authority. Mr. Williamson was told that this had been done with the full knowledge of the Road Haulage Association, who had taken legal advice.

During 1956-57 the applicants had purchased platform lorries and converted them into tankers with increases in weight. No goodwill attached to special-A vehicles and work had to be found for them. Two vehicles purchased in the London area were now to be based in Manchester and were to serve the whole country.

Although the objectors contended that the weight increases were illegal, Mr. Williamson's view was that no action could be taken in the circumstances. Nevertheless, he refused the assignment of the two London vehicles on the ground that they could not conveniently serve the same area.

Mr. T. A. T. Hanlon, Northern Licensing Authority, however, took a D22

different view of weight offences: He drew attention to questionable and irregular practices concerning the assignment of special-A vehicles, including trading by middlemen without physical possession of the vehicles and misuse of application forms.

Some licences were revoked for weight irregularities which went far beyond trivial alterations through repair or normal wear and tear. Mr. Hanlon expressed the view that other operators and the public must be protected, and rigid weight restrictions, as laid down in the Act, were the only safeguard against dubious transactions.

Regarding the activities of dealers, it has been argued that para. 8 of part one of the First Schedule to the 1953 Act does not state that in order to get the benefit of a special A licence a purchaser must take the vehicle, but only that there must be an agreement, after which he has a right to the vehicle. Whatever the ethics of the situation, the persons Who, whether in ignorance or otherwise, break the law during dubious assignment transactions are the operators concerned.

The applicant for an assignment States on the form that the actual vehicle is in his possession and if, as in many instances, he purchases a new vehicle and never sees the original, he is making a false statement. It is also vital to have the vehicle weighed on delivery to ascertain whether it agrees with the weight shown in the book.

C-hiring Abused

Earlier in the year, in Northern Scotland, 'the Deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. A. Robertson, spoke out concerning the abuse of C-hiring facilities, which he suggested had been going on for more than 10 years. There were strong grounds for suspicion, he added, of hiring ;agencies set up by certain hauliers,_ and the subterfuges used tended to disrupt the licensing system.

In many cases, neither the agencies nor the customers could be called the drivers' employers, and the vehicle operators must be held responsible. A number of prosecutions followed and in some cases vehicles were suspended and licences revoked.

Mr. 'W. P. James, West Midland Licensing Authority, had a -difficult problem to face in the flood of licence applications for car transporters which followed the decision that they could no longer operate under trade plates.

The decision of the major car manufacturers that new cars should be transported rather than driven to their destinations has made deliveries Of new, transporters difficult. Many of the grants made will be reviewed early this year because of the unsatisfactory position regarding transporters on order, and the danger that if grants are not taken up, further applications for additional vehicles will be before the Licensing Authority while vehicles licensed are not yet on the road.

Time and Money Wasted

Although many hauliers realize the necessity of properly prepared and presented applications, the Licensing Authorities believe that there is still a cavalier attitude in some quarters towards the licensing system. ..

There are' far too many cases of non-appearance without notification, of uncertified figures, or lack of the right type of evidence and witnesses. Late renewals appear to be increasing and excuses for allowing a licence to lapse are numerous .and often unconvincing. The notes sent out by the Licensing Authorities' offices on the proper presentation of cases are often

completely ignored. ,

In some areas there has been cause for .complaint of the attitude of applicants who have been before the road and .rail negotiating committee and satisfied objectors. Having surmounted what they think is the main hurdle, they regard appearance before the Licensing Authority as a mere formality. In one or two instances they have not seen fit to appear. Operators who take this line in future may find they have more difficulty with their unopposed application than if the objectors had stayed in.

. Whatever its shortcomings, the licensing system as a whole does the job for which it was intended—to protect the interests of both operators and customers. The efficient operator, who keeps his house in order and presents his applications in the proper form, has little to fear, but those who, despite repeated warnings, continue to regard licensing as something apart from daily operation will be the sufferers when special A licences have to be replaced by substantive public A licences.


comments powered by Disqus