AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

'Drawbar or artic' application by Elliott

9th September 1966
Page 39
Page 39, 9th September 1966 — 'Drawbar or artic' application by Elliott
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?

Ar LEEDS on Tuesday the Yorkshire deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. M. Gosnay, heard an application by Elliott Hauliers (Northern) Ltd., of York, to add one traitor not exceeding 15 tons, to be used as articulated or drawbar type and one trailer, not exceeding 22 tons, low loader or flat, to be used either as an attic or independent trailer. The objectors were BRS (Pickfords Ltd.) and Sunter Bros. Ltd.

Mr. H. G. Hall, for Elliott, told Mr. M. Gosnay that last December an application on similar lines had been heard by him. This had been refused and the case had gone to the Transport Tribunal on appeal and was again turned down.

The matter went back much earlier to an original licence granted to Arthur Robinson (Transport) Ltd., of Middlesbrough, in 1961, in the Northern traffic area. A great deal of importance was attached to the distinction between artic and drawbar operation today, but five years ago, Mr. Hall claimed, this distinction was not so carefully drawn between the two, and it could appear that the grant from that area was for alter

native use of a unit as an artic. or separat tractor and drawbar trailer.

When Elliott took over the business th base was moved from Washington (Cc Durham) to York and a new licence wa granted in the Yorkshire area. The presen position was that the Yorkshire licenc specified artic in respect of both the tracto

and trailer, and now Elliott came before th, authorities to enable the vehicle to be used a it was originally authorized to be used claimed Mr. Hall, as either an artic or draw bar vehicle.

But Mr. T. H. Campbell-Wardlaw, fo the objectors, while examining Mr. R Gibson, transport manager for Elliott claimed that the company had operated drawbar trailer in defiance of the law. Mr Gibson said that he did not think so. I-I( had always believed that the Northerr authorization had covered this and th( details were merely copied from that licence

when the matter was transferred to th( Yorkshire area. Drawbars had been usec on infrequent occasions by Elliott (Northern', Ltd. They had bought a dolly in 1964 and 2 drawbar trailer in 1965.

The hearing was adjourned, without the objectors giving evidence, until October.