Lack of Uniformity with Normal Users
Page 56
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By G. Duncan Jewell
DIFFERING views held by Licensing Authorities on normal users continue to cause concern. Complaints of preferential treatment arise when there is a lack of uniformity in dealing with transgressions. It does not appear that justice is always served when penalties are sometimes inflicted and in other cases not at all, although it is admitted that each case must be dealt with on its own merits.
Applications made last month in the Yorkshire and'North Western Areas illustrate this point. A, complete change of normal user was involved in each. At Manchester, Messrs. G. Plant, Macclesfield, applied to Mr. A.41-1. Jolliffe, North Western Deputy Licensing Authority, for the renewal of their A licence for two vehicles. The normal user was for the transport of meat, but the applicants sought to justify a change to the carriage of steel.
The British Transport Commission were the objectors. Mr. Jolliffe was told that the applicants had lost their meat business in 1955 because of the dissolution of the Meat Transport Organization. This occurred soon after the purchase of suitable vehicles, and efforts to retain meat traffic were unsuccessful.
The vehicles were then modified to carry steel, and such loads, carried over long distances, now amounted to 80-90 per cent. of the applicants' work. It was therefore desired to modify the normal user, and evidence was produced that customers would be greatly inconvenienced if they were deprived of the vehicles.
Financial Advantage Argument advanced by the Commission was that Messrs. Plant had gained a great financial advantage from the change and should have surrendered their licence and applied for a new one earlier. On October 1, Mr. Jolliffe announced the suspension of the two vehicles for three months. He was, however, satisfied that there was sufficient evidence of need, and would renew the licence after the period of suspension.
The Yorkshire case was unusual and demonstrated the advantages of turning a haulage business into a limited-liability company. V. Wainwright and Co., Ltd., Barnsley, sought to renew an A licence for three vehicles and faced opposition from the B.T.C.
Before the war the business was of the " one-man " kind, and miners' home coal was carried within a small radius. Operations grew after the war and a limited-liability company was formed in 1948, at which time the normal user was "coal, hardware and general goods B22 within 50 miles of Barnsley and occasionally to London and coastal towns."
Soon afterwards, the company's shares were acquired by a clearing house, who proceeded to employ the vehicles throughout the country. As only the shares changed hands, it was not necessary to apply to the Yorkshire Licensing Authority to take over the business as Wainwright still held the licence.
No change of user was disclosed when the licence was renewed in 1953. But, in 1957, an application was made to substitute a vehicle and an amended user tantamount to "general goods, Great Britain was declared. As no increase in unladen weight was involved, the case was not called to public inquiry and was dealt with in the Authority's office. Possible objectors were thus unaware that there had been a change of activity and, in any case, had no right of objection at that juncture.
Next, the company was sold to a group of haulage undertakings who eventually applied for a renewal of the licence. The vehicles were merged into a large fleet and the new owners sought a change of normal user to the conditions applying to the remainder of their vehicles.
"Complete Mockery"
The Commission's solicitor described the application and the transactions which preceded it ai a complete mockery of the licensing procedure. The various purchasers of the 'shares in the Wainwright concern had escaped having to come before the Authority to justify taking it over and disclosing the normal user. The nature of the work had been changed without sanction.
Mr. I. H. A. Randolph, Yorkshire Deputy Licensing Authority, took the view that the licence should be renewed and inflicted no penalty. He admitted that there had been a complete change of normal user and that the circumstances were peculiar. The evidence, however, showed that the vehicles were fully employed.
Common aspects of both these cases were that the two businesses had been carried on for a number of years contrary to the stipulated normal user with, probably, substantial financial advantage. Also, there was evidence that customers would suffer if the licences were not renewed.
The law clearly states that the interests of customers come first and those of hauliers second, but that one operator should be penalized and another not can hardly be considered, just. Those who have not troubled to keep abreast of current interpretation of the law should not be allowed to "get away with it" to the detriment of those who keep within their licence conditions.
The Transport Tribunal have laid down that an operator must, even during the currency of a licence, surrender it and apply for a new one if there is a change of user, and that breaches of the law, even if committed in ignorance, must incur some penalty. Perhaps the Pike and Roberts appeals, which are supported by the Road Haulage Association, will clarify this situation. At the moment it seems that no clear-cut principles are followed when decisions are arrived at.
Delays Did Not Impress
IT seems that Mr. W. P. James, West
Midland Licensing Authority, was not impressed by complaints of late deliveries and collections when he gave his decision to add only two instead of 16 vehicles to the fleet of Collins Express Parcel Service, Ltd.
The two vehicles allowed were for dealing with traffic transferred from customers' own vehicles. On this point, Mr. James referred to appeal decisions relating to the transfer of loads from ancillary and contract-A vehicles to A
or B-licence vehicles. These indicated that some weight should be given to the wishes of customers when assessing evidence.
Collins had asserted that the running of a parcels service could not be related to statistics because so much depended upon the places to which vehicles were required to go to collect and deliver.
Complaints are part of the daily life of a large parcels organization, and it would seem from this case that when more vehicles are required it would he better to base an application on an expansion of trade rather than delays incurred in dealing with an existing volume of business.
The solicitor for the British Transport Commission, who objected, must he well satisfied with the decision. He had suggested that the company's needs could be covered by half the vehicles applied for.
Drivers Must Be Controlled
ARE hauliers at the mercy of their drivers in the matter of adhering to the regulations concerning working hours and keeping of records? Maj. F. S. Eastwood, Yorkshire Licensing Authority, does not think so.
At an inquiry in Leeds, when he had
to consider taking action against Henry Long (Manningham), Ltd., following convictions for offences arising from the keeping of records, a director of the company said that since the war they had experienced much difficulty in controlling their drivers. Thirty-five vehicles were employed, mainly for a textile concern, running between Flint and the West Riding.
witness explained that Servis ders had been fitted on a number of les after the war. The fleet was aalized, but when it was reLased as a unit British Road Services lot return the instruments. After prosecutions, the company put tiers on 24 of their vehicles at a cost 00.
ween April I-September 5 this year, ver, 13 drivers and 15 mates walked tecause they said they objected to spied on. Men were then required ;port to the office by telephone. ig reverse-charge calls, so that the )yers could check their whereabouts. resulted in a heavy rise in the any's telephone bill. Wages had increased by 8 per cent. The mer, however, would not accept any ice in rates.
stranger to haulage management. Eastwood remarked that he would thought that an old-established any, who had been prosecuted in as well, would have taken such ires long before. Servis recorders nothing new, he said, and recalled had put 180 of them in a fleet in
There had been no trouble with -s as he had arranged with the union ehand. He was unable to underwhy the haulage industry did not t the transfer-call system and insist drivers using it when reporting in v-en ing,
!.re arc other ways in which drivers e controlled, as many hauliers have vered when tackling this problem. ould be realized that there is no e for half measures when lack of al can have serious consequences.
✓ Many Car nsporters?
IFFICULTY in assessing the need for extra ear transporters faces ensing Authorities following the ision that these vehicles require A B licences. In the North Western :a, an applicant at Preston last week that a Midlands organization had :red to hire him 24 licensed transters.
. W. P. James. West Midland Licentuthority. has had many applications ich vehicles to he acquired because of ups in delivery. He has indicated Further inquiries may be necessary ; grants are taken up within specified If there becomes a surplus of transrs in the West Midlands, future applimay find it hard to convince Mr. 5 of need for additions.
y Do They 'ect?
is sometimes hard to fathom what s in the mind of the British Transport mmission when they make certain ections. A case in point was that Mr. W. S. Field. Wick, near Bristol.
o applied for a B-licence variation Mr. S. W. Nelson, Western Licensing thority, in September.
. Field wished to carry goods for ;las (Kingswood). Ltd., as required, and general goods on return journeys for delivery within 30 miles of base, also to carry other goods within 75 miles.
Mr. T. D. Corpe, for the applicant, tolci the Authority that agreement had been reached with the objectors, the railways and British Road Services, but added that the railways were concerned with the part of the application relating to Douglas, whilst B.R.S. were anxious over the carriage of general goods on return journeys.
The agreed amendment was goods for Douglas as required, general goods on return journeys for delivery en route or within 20 miles of base, and general goods 75 miles.
It is difficult to see how such an agreement benefited the objectors. The inference is that they were unable te provide alternative services or to justify their opposition.
How to Silence the B.T.C.
THE British Transport Commission seem to be effectively silenced when there is any question of a possible loss
of traffic to them, although they are sticklers on questions of principle when their own interests are not involved.
Harper and Myirea, Ltd., Liverpool. who were stated to be big customers of the B,T.C., successfully applied for wide normal-user terms and had no opposition from the Commission. The company said that they ran a regular service over a large area by hired vehicles and one of their own. It was argued that the normal user for their vehicle should refer to the whole area coveted by the service. although they could not prove that the vehicle regularly visited all the places involved.
When a Grant May Be Withdrawn
THE opinion that a grant for A vehicle could be withdrawn if it were not taken up was expressed by Mr. J. A. r. Hanlon, Northern Licensing Authority, when he gave his decision upon an application made in July by J. Elliott and Co., Ltd., Bishop Auckland.
In 1956, the company had been granted a licence for a vehicle to be acquired, and a notice to this effect had been •published in Applications and Decisions. The grant could therefore be revoked or withdrawn only in certain circumstances. Mr. Hanlon thought that a Licensing Authority could give notice that a grant could be withdrawn if it were not taken up in reasonable time, and that the withdrawal could be published.
Licences are granted on evidence of need. It is not clear what would happen if another operator applied to do work for which a successful applicant had been granted a vehicle but had not taken it up. At least one Licensing Authority thinks that he would be justified in granting such a later application and revoking the original one on the ground of a false statement of intention.
Some Authorities send out reminders when grants concerning vehicles to be acquired are not taken up within a reasonable period. It is generally agreed that little can be done until the licence expires, but oneview is that the application for renewal should include the vehicle 'involved and then objections could be invited.