Significant Licensing Cases
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Bristow Case Is A Warning
IT has been said in some quarters that the case of C. Bristow, Ltd., shows that the Transport Tribunal and the Licensing Authorities are trying to exercise over-rigid control, and provides additional evidence of the need for an inquiry into the haulage licensing system.
On the other hand, many hauliers see this case and that of Bulk Liquid Transport, Ltd., as a warning which will tip the wiles in favour of those who haveabided by the rules of a system which, whatever its demerits, has worked and is working reasonably well.
Another point raised is whether the removal of 47 vehicles from Metropolitan licences will seriously upset the balance of transport in the area. It is suggested that other operators would get into serious difficulties if they attempted to cater for the traffic, because of "the distorted and extravagant interpretation now accepted of the legal provisions about normal user."
What has been overlooked is that any operator who is called upon to undertake fresh work, and can prove a need, will have little or no difficulty in obtaining a new licence, with the requisite normal user, if he makes his application as soon as the new traffic calls for it.
Applications of this sort have already been granted up and down the country, and much of the difficulty that has arisen over the interpretation of normal user is either through ignorance on the part of the haulier or because he was not prepared to take the trouble to keep his licence in order.
Many failed to realize that licensing was one of the most important sides of their business, and erred through not taking proper legal advice.
Transport Gap
On the question of whether the loss of these 47 vehicles will cause a transport gap in the area, the sequel will prove of great interest to the industry generally. Many operators believe that there is a surplus of vehicles because of the many grants involving conversions from contract-A or C-hire to A and B licences. It is argued that existing fleets could absorb an increase of up to 10 per cent in general traffic in most areas.
There are certain aspects of licensing which merit inquiry, but unless some form of control is exercised through normal user the Licensing Authorities' job of equating supply and demand would become impossible. Any relaxation on curbs on irregularity must do more harm than good.
B.R.S. Worst "Base" Offenders
THE Transport Tribunal's ruling, in the Bradbury appeal, that a haulier need not carry. goods from and to the place which he names as his permanent base, kills a British Transport Commission submission which, if it had been upheld, would not only have hampered the work of many hauliers, but might have rebounded on themselves.
The contention by the B.T.C. was that "as none of the goods to be carried was to be loaded at or near the base stated on the licence, it could not be the place from which it was intended that the authorized vehicles would normally be used.". This was described by the Tribunal as "startling."
There appears to be a variance between the attitude to licensing of the British Transport Commission's legal department and that of the operating staff of British Road Services. Recent applications have shown that B.R.S. are the biggest offenders when it comes to irregular use of vehicles away from their bases. In their recent application to the Eastern Licensing Authority, (which is part-heard) to switch 45 vehicles and a number of trailers from Northampton, in the East Midland Traffic Area, to Bedford, B.R.S. representatives admitted that 12 Northampton vehicles and 20 drivers had been operating from Bedford nearly 12 months in advance of the application.
Nine of the vehicles involved in the application were originally based• in the West Midlands. They had •been delicensed and transferred to Northampton on grounds of "need." Evidence offered in support of the application was that the majority of the work the vehicles were engaged upon originated near to Bedford.
Again, in the North West, when B.R.S. sought a new A licence to base 17 vehicles at Sandbach, it was admitted that since 1956 the vehicles had been operating from bases different from those specified on the licences without any information to the Licensing Authority. It had been the intention to close Sandbach depot, and eight vehicles—then part of the MidCheshire Group—had been dispersed.
16 Vehicles Allowed In essence, theapplication was to operate the same number of vehicles from Sandbach as was used originally from three Mid-Cheshire bases, and delete them from licences with bases at Liverpool, Warrington, St. Helens, Chester and Hindley. Mr. F. Williamson, North Western Licensing Authority, granted a licence for 16 vehicles only, refusing-one which had not been in use since February, 1959.
. In the Sandbach case, the change of base does not effect any alteration in the work of the vehicles concerned, but at Bedford, despite the applicants' protestations to the contrary, 52 independent objectors claim that a grant will have serious repercussions.
The " big brother" attitude adopted on. occasion by both B.R.S. and the railways has an unfortunate effect, and private hauliers would have more faith in the genuineness of their submissions on matters of principle if they put their own house in order.
Under the present procedure, it someT times appears that even their own advocates are not given a complete picture of what has been going on, as is illustrated by certain cases where dubious points have been brought to light by the objectors' cross-examination of divisional witnesses.
A countrywide organization, such as is at the disposal of nationalized transport, gives many opportunities to intensify competition by switching vehicles, as considered necessary, particularly when delicensed vehicles can be called upon as and when required.
The self-imposed role of the B.T.C. as watchdog of the licensing system does not go well with dubious practices, but one thing which can be said in their favour is that in both these cases, and in a previous one in South Wales, the matters were brought to light by B.R.S. in an effort to put things right.
There may well be good grounds for many of the vehicle movements, but B.R.S. have developed a habit of anticipating the result of applications and acting as Licensing Authority.
Surplus of Tonnage ?
WHATEVER the ethics of the matter. and leaving aside the question of "statements of intention," the gap in the law which allows conversion of vehicles to different types and greater weights, after registration at a specified figure for the grant of a special-A licence, must have resulted in a surplus of tonnage above that which it was intended should return to the general pool of transport.
Recent disclosures in Yorkshire show that this type of transaction is by no means confined to the Northern Area, and alterations of vehicles from " flats " to heavy tippers, tankers, and other specialized types has proceeded merrily.
It appears that a regular procedure has grown up in these matters by which dealers keep within the letter of the law, and hauliers have been advised that during the currency of the special-A licences they were free to make what alterations to vehicles they chose.
The method adopted in Yorkshire was to purchase special-A licences of the highest tonnages available, obtain new chassis which, with platforms, could be weighed and licensed within the weights specified, and then replace the platforms with tank or tipping bodies. The next moves were to re-register with the Local Taxation Office and pay the higher duty, at the same time keeping the Licensing Authority informed at each stage.
No question of additional axles was involved. It was pointed out that all were heavy vehicles with a gross weight of 24 tons, and that additional unladen weight meant less carrying capacity.
While from the dealers' point of view there seems no doubt that these transactions are legal, no information has ever been forthcoming as to what was likely to happen when such special-A licences came up for renewal.
There has been strong and sustained objection from established tanker and
other specialist operators to grants of public-A licences to perpetuate entries into these fields by back-door methods, and the first appeal against such a grant (to Bulk Liquid Transport, Ltd„ in the North West) has not yet reached the Tribunal.
Whatever advice has been given, the fact remains that every operator concerned in such conversions has signed a declaration of intention to use a vehicle of the type and weight specified on the special-A licence. An interesting point in this connection is that when any substitution has been made after conversions, the original weight has been shown on the application forms.
It can hardly be said that an operator was unable to fulfil his intention when he knew at the time it was made that 'a vehicle of specified type was not going to be used. The views of the Tribunal on this question are anxiously awaited.
Grasping the Nettle
/-1 A RULING has been made by
Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, Northern Licensing Authority, that because of "certain difficulties which have arisen in the Northern Area the weights of all trailers shall be specified on A licences.
This position is interesting because, following a submission by Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, on behalf of Joseph Elliott and Co., Bishop Auckland, that the law did not require it to be specified, and to do so would strike a serious blow at trailer operators, Mr. Hanlon replied that he would not grant a licence for a trailer without knowing its weight until the Transport Tribunal required it.
Mr. Wardlaw said the law contained adequate safeguards regulating the maximum numbers and types of trailer, and the capacity of a trailer depended upon the power of its prime mover. It was accepted that trailers were freely interchangeable, and there was nothing to prevent an operator who applied for a trailer at a certain weight from altering it without notifying the Authority.
The spotlight is turned here on another weakness in the law whereby an articulated vehicle is regarded as one vehicle for taxation purposes but as a tractor and trailer for the purpose of licensing. If an articulated unit were licensed as one vehicle, it need not prevent interchangeability among semi-trailers, but would avoid the present unsatisfactory situation where an operator can acquire a small semi-trailer and exchange it at will for any other type.
Whatever the outcome, nothing but good can come from ventilating weaknesses in the law which are allowing backdoor entrance into specialized fields. Mr. Hanlon is to he congratulated on the way he grasps the nettle in the interests of the industry generally.
Return Loads on Normal User ?
MOT everyone agrees with the J. Tribunal's pronouncements that return loads need not be specified in normal user. Many hauliers realize that an operator with regular outward traffic to a particular area can afford to offer cut rates for return loads, thus abstracting outward traffic from those based there.
A recent application at Caernarvon, in the North West, illustrates the point. Mr. J. Parry, Glan Conway, sought to add an articulated unit to his A licence to carry slate tiles from North Wales to Lancashire. Because of economic conditions, the quarry rates were low, and it was stated that it was essential that the applicant should be able to carry feeding stuffs back from Liverpool if he were to make the traffic pay.
The B.T.C. objected on the ground that they were substantial carriers of feeding stuffs into North Wales and a grant must abstract from them. For the applicant it was submitted that as the B.T.C. had always insisted that return loads should not be included in normal user, their objection could apply only to the tiles which were the outward traffic.
The decision of Mr. L. H. Shelton, acting North Western Deputy Licensing Authority, was to refuse because existing facilities were adequate for the outward traffic.
It is interesting to speculate whether the B.T.C. would have appealed, if there had been a grant. because feeding-stuffs traffic would be abstracted.
PASSENGER.
Co-operation, or Prohibition ?
nUESTIONS of convenience for 1.Z, holidaymakers, on whom the town depends for its livelihood, were argued at Morecambe earlier this month when the corporation and Ribble Motor Services, Ltd., clashed on a matter of principle.
Ribble, who acquired excursion licences in the town for the first time in 1958 when they took over licences held by Florence Motors (Morecambe), Ltd., Kia-Ora Motors, and F. Binns, Ltd., sought to pick-up and set down on the highway in Clarence Street, instead of on private land as specified in the licence. This land was no longer available.
In reply to the corporation's contention that, as the highway authority they had always set their face against excursion coach points on the road, the company submitted that they were the only operators against whom objections had been pressed in this type of application.
Bus companies brought many thousands of visitors into the town and their convenience should be a matter of co-operation between the parties, not one of prohibition, it was stated.
The objectors suggested that Ribble had broken an agreement between the corporation and the Morecambe Coach Operators Association by opening a
booking kiosk on the promenade, and that to accede to the company's application would lead to similar ones.
The cause of the objections appears to have been the assumption by Ribble that they could continue to use the highway as Florence Motors had. The road problem in Morecambe during the high season makes it imperative for the corporation to keep traffic congestion to the minimum.
The Traffic Commissioners have indicated that although they might be prepared to grant a limited amount of picking-up and setting-down at specified times, they would prefer that the company found a point off the highway.
Whilst it seems apparent that other Morecambe operators have not always adhered to the letter of their licences in allowing picking-up on the highway, the public interest is surely in the direction of reducing congestion, not adding to it.