Transport Tribunal in Scotland
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TWO appeals were rejected and one allowed in part ,by the Transport Tribunal in Edinburgh on Tuesday.
When Eddie and Eyre (Transport), Ltd., of Fraserburgh, appealed unsuccessfully against the Scottish Deputy Licensing Authority's refusal to grant a six-wheeled lorry in place of a fourwheeled vehicle to carry herring from Ullapool, Sir Hubert Hull, the president, said there had been no evidence of a sufficiently tangible nature that any client had been appreciably inconveniehced.
If the appellant's need for a larger vehicle was really pressing then he should he prepared to give up more of the smaller, less convenient tonnage; this, in fact, was what the Licensing Authority had said in his decision. Sir Hilbert said that if there were occasions when the large vehicle would be more useful there might also be occasions when inconvenience 'might be caused by the fact that there were not sufficient herring.
Mr. A. P. Brown, for the appellant, had told the Tribunal that two herring merchants of considerable standing had said they needed larger vehicles, One Tipper Allowed The Tribunal made a partial grant to A. M. Donald (Plant), Ltd„ a plant hire company who had been refused a' B licence for two tippers totake materials away from excavation works; one tipper was allowed, with a radius of 25 miles. Sir Hubert Bull said it was plain that the appellants were both plant hirers and contractors and had dope civil engineering work for a number of customers.
The appellants' solicitor said that as one vehicle was filled with materials .t went away and a second vehicle was thus essential, but a solicitor for four respondents replied that if this argument were taken to its logical conclusion operators of tippers in the districts would find their fleets becoming redundant.
Two Artics Refused Inconvenience caused to customers and the need for greater carrying capacity on their vehicles between Landoll and Glasgow were two of the reasons given by Tartan Arrow Services, Ltd., in their appeal against the Scottish Licensing Authority's refusal to grant two articulated vehicles on A licence. Mr.. A. M. Morison, for Tartan Arrow, said business was increasing and the company had been forced to sub-contract a great deal.
Sir Hubert Hull said the mere fact of customer complaints did not prove that a haulier's services were not completely adequate. The Tribunal were not satisfied that the services had not been able to meet all the demands being made upon them. Sir Hubert said the applicants' registered office was in London but the grant of additional licences in respect (..4 their Glasgow base would provide more facilities in London without proof of the need for additional facilities for carrying goods from London to Glasgow. The appeal was dismissed.