Significant Licensing Cases
Page 56
Page 61
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Mr. Hanlon Criticizing System, Not the Tribunal
THE Northern Licensing Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, recently made it clear that his remarks concerning certain Appeal Cases were not criticisms of Transport Tribunal decisions, but were directed against the system which allows appeals against revocation or suspension imposed by Licensing Authorities, on an ex-parte basis. He believes that, in the
At Newcastle upon Tyne, last month, Mr. Hanlon also referred to the Tribunal's criticisms concerning contractA licences during the Ellis Appeal, when they said there had been a surprising failure on the part of all concerned to consider the terms of contracts, and the Licensing Authority had furnished them with particulars relating only to one vehicle. .
Mr. Hanlon said it was always his practice to refer, to all contract licences before hearing an application, to see that the conditions had been carried out. The Tribunal's criticism of the -Licensing Authority and counsel in the Ellis case was _due te a misunderstanding. When a request was received from their registrar for the Ellis contract licence, a clerk took the original contract for one vehicle off the file and forwarded it to the Tribunal—the whole file, relating to six vehicles, should havebeen sent
On all future occasions such files would be included as part of the proceedings.
Normal User Problem
WHAT sort of time limit is to he allowed before it is necessary to apply for a change of normal user when the type of goods carried alters? This question was posed to the North Western Deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. A. H. Jolliffe, last month.
K. C. Medlicott, Lid., Newton-lcWillows sought a new A licence for thre.s. vehicles with a normal User: "Mainly glassware, paper and paper products, cotton, timber, machinery, steel; all principal ports, Lancashire, Yorkshire, London area, Midlands, Scotland." The applicant company, A. V. Barton and Sons, and Scott's of Oldham, were all controlled by the same directors. and a -previous application' by Barton to take over the vehicles with a changed normal user had been refused. As a result the vehicles were off the road from August, 1960, until a short-term licence was granted in December.
The case for Medlicott was that up to October, 1958, the three vehicles were mainly carrying sugar in bags for Tate — c18 and Lyle, who then intimated that they wished to change to bulk delivery by tanker. After the traffic was lost the vehicles were used to assist in the general work of the three firms, which they had previously been doing to a small extent. They did not wait until the licence was due for renewal before seeking a change, but applied some 12 months later, which they considered reasonable as the sugar in bulk was only experimental and could have returned to the old method.
The vehicles were now carrying 50 per cent. for Bowaters and 15 per cent, for the United Glass Co., neither of whom ever sent witnesses to court. Articles read in The Commercial Motor had decided them to make a new application before the renewal date.
The objecting. argued that there had been a change of normal user and 12 months was not a reasonable period before applying. There was no support from the main customers and the application should be refused.
Scott's were also seeking to add five vehicles and a trailer to their A licence, and, although supported by four witnesses, their principal customersBowaters and United Glass—did not attend. It was said the application was interlocked with Medlicott's as there was a measure of inter-availability of the vehicles of all three fleets, and Barton's had taken over the work of the three vehicles involved in Medlicott's application.
Mr. Jolliffe reserved decision in both applications and has a considerable problem in deciding what is a reasonable period before making an application for a new licence after a change of normal user. Probably the only safe criterion is the circumstances attached to a particular case. The second problem—what regard should be paid to the needs of customers who refused to send witnesses to court— is a vexed question, as there is a tendency to allow the larger industrial firms to get away with it. The general feeling is that the principle should be followed that if the need is sufficiently urgent witnesses will attend.
Application and Objection Forms
T"proper filling in of the official forms. when making licensing applications or objecting, is a responsibility which rests squarely on the hauliers
concerned. In particular signatures should not be appended to documents before they have been filled in, or without reading and checking them.
The practice of delegating such matters to a solicitor or association without bothering to check whether the contents of documents are accurate or otherwise, as well as carelessness in completion when done personally by the haulier concerned, is becoming increasingly frowned upon both by the Transport Tribunal and the Licensing Authorities.
At a recent public inquiry in the North Western Traffic Area, the objection forms of three Road Haulage Association members failed to state the facilities they were providing in the area. The applicant's solicitor sought their exclusion from the case on the grounds that the law had not been complied with, but the North Western Deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. A. H. Jolliffe, ruled that the incorrect filling in of objection forms was insufficient to invalidate the objections unless the applicant could prove that the omission had affected the preparation of his case.
Mr. Jolliffe added that such errors were far too common, and were particularly objectionable when the forms had • been filled in by the Association On behalf, On their members. . .
Again. at Shrewsbury irr January, an applicant to the West Midland Licensing Authority complained that objection forms were not signed, proper particulars of.licences held and faCilities offered were not shown, and the " copy " sent to, the Lieensing Authority differed frpm that forwarded to the applicant.
During the same month, the President of the Transport Tribunal, Sir Hubert Hull, made very strong comments concerning the number :of defectiVe• appliestion forms which appeared in the files of cases heard before the Tribunal. He expressed the View that 'Licensing Authorities should refuse applications out of hand where documents were defective. .
The same principle obviously applies to objections, and, unless hauliers „take more care in these matters; they may find important applications 'delayed or objec-. tins ruled out.
Objectors Themselves Often Slipshod
'QUITE apart from the question of LIform-filling, objectors are often slipshod in their approach to the question of opposing the grant of applications which are likely to injure their interests if granted.
• Many seem to think that the mere publication of their name in "Applications and Decisions" is a gesture sufficient to influence the Licensing Authority, A typical example of this muddled form of thinking occurred at Shrewsbury in January when Express Motor Carriers (0swestry), Ltd., who operate a fleet of nine licensed vehicles, were listed as objectors to a B-licence application. The company's managing director, in evi
dence, told the West Midland Deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. L. Hall, that he was unaware that it was necessary for an objector to produce figures to show vehicle availability, and the degree of employment of his fleet in order to discharge the Onus laid upon him by the 1953 Act to show there was an excess of facilities or would be if the application were granted.
Once an applicant has proved a prima facie case, the failure of objectors to prove there are facilities available to do the work has led to many applications being granted which might well have been refused if the objectors had properlt prepared their evidence.
Passenger: The Cadman Case
QNE direct result of the Cadman V./Case, in which a small bus operator was practically put out of business by the refusal of the National Coal Board to support the renewal of his stage
carriage licences, is that the Yorkshire Traffic-Commissioners now insist that there is a proper agreement between the parties before granting licences for miners' services.
In the past operators often had to be content with a letter from the N.C.B., or even a verbal agreement. This was the position of Mr. Cadman, and after a dispute over mileages operated and alleged failure to keep to schedule, the N.C.B. supported another operator's application for the licence, and the Yorkshire Traffic Commissioners were forced to make a grant on grounds of need. leaving ('ad man with no redress.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of the dispute, nationalized concerns should apply proper business methods, both from the point of view of the taxpayer and from that of the small bus operator, who sinks most of his capital into public service vehicles to provide workers' services, It is likely that other Traffic Commissioners will follow suit in demanding proper contracts.