Wallace Arnold continues
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AManchester last week, before the North Western traffic commissioners. the hearing was resumed of an application by Wallace Arnold (Tours) Ltd. for the continuation with modification of four excursion and tours licences from Rochdale, Manchester, Preston and Bolton.
The application, which attracted 17 objectors, . incorporates route, fare and inclusive charge amendments on British tours and new excursions to Southend Airport, Dover and Southampton in conjunction with Continental tours for the Easter period and from April I to October 31, with an additional vehicle allowance of six on any one day.
Some objections were directed against the whole application—at previous hearings it was admitted that no facilities under the four licences had been given since 1958, due to restrictions imposed by the Commissioners and on appeal by the Minister of Transport, following the purchase of the goodwill of the licences from Yelloway Motor Services, Rochdale, in 1954.
These restrictions had involved Wallace Arnold in unprofitable operations which the company ceased after four years, a decision it was now felt was wrongly taken.
The case for Wallace Arnold having been completed (COMMERCIAL MOTOR, June 24 and July I), the first shot for the objectors was fired last week by Mr. J. A. Booth (for nine independent operators), who submitted there was no case to answer in respect of the proposed operations from Rochdale, Preston and Bolton for Continental tours, saying there was no application as such to start from these towns.
As experienced operators, Wallace Arnold should have known better than to make applications to introduce excursions to Southend Airport, Dover and Southampton, expressed to start only from Manchester, and in the circumstances there was nothing but Manchester to deal with, as anything not applied for could not be extended. He was supported by Mr. R. 0. Sutton (for seven objectors) and Mr. W. H. Ashmore, for
British Railways.
For the applicant company, Mr. F. Marshall said on a question of paperwork the • issue raised was merely "snatching at the shadow" and he had never heard of "no case to answer" on paperwork. In any case, he submitted, the point should have been taken at the beginning of the case.
The chairman, Mr. C. R. Hodgson, said the Commissioners had a wide discretion and they were not a strict court of law. There was no doubt that if the submission was upheld, further applications would be made and they agreed with Mr. Marshall the point should have been taken at the outset.
The hearing was continued on Wednesday.