If in Doubt Seek Legal Advice
Page 58
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THERE are still many hauliers without any real knowledge of the law regarding licences. One of the biggest misconceptions which continues to linger is that an A licence is open and without restriction.
The Commercial Motor and the Licensing Authorities do their best to bring the requirements of the law home to operators, but these ideas persist and many hauliers seem reluctant to seek legal advice.
Revocation or suspension inquiries, following the operation of vehicles belonging to one licence-holder by another, have become quite frequent and recently aroused comment by the former West Midland Licensing Authority, Mr. W. P. James, when acting as Deputy at a Birmingham inquiry.
An operator with a fleet of eight A-licensed vehicles had been called before him following the use of three of them by another haulier on regular long distance work in breach of the declaration of normal user.
The defence put forward was based on the same misconception—that he had held A licences since the inception of the Act and had always thought that an A licence was unlimited and he could carry whatever he pleased. When the 25-mile limit was lifted, following denationalization, work was accepted all over the country. After a serious illness, two years ago, he was unable to keep up with the demands of the business and the three flat vehicles in the fleet were let out on hire to another haulier, who was told they were on "unlimited A licence."
It was only when the licence-holder was visited by enforcement officers in January, 1961. that he realized any offence was being committed.
An application by the second haulier concerned to take over the licence for the three vehicles had been refused and although some payment had been made to the licence-holder for the use of the vehicles, Mr. James was satisfied they were not under his control,
Although the licence-holder is respon sible for any irregularities in the operations of vehicles. hauliers who take chances before a proper application for take over is made have only themselves to blame if their plans go wrong. Mr. James made it clear that it was no excuse for an experienced haulier to use A-licensed vehicles on the assumption they could go anywhere—he should make it his business to obtain precise information about the normal user.
In this particular case the normal user covered only local work on which the other vehicles (tippers) were engaged. The licence-holder's first reaction to a revocation or suspension inquiry was a letter to the L.A. asking for the vehicles concerned to be deleted but at the inquiry he asked for their suspension pending replacement by tippers for local work.
In suspending the vehicle for three months Mr. James took into account the fact that they had not been operated since January 31.
One of the main causes of this unfortunate situation was the fact that at no time had legal advice been taken by the parties concerned. If the normal machinery for selling the vehicles and goodwill and transferring the licence had been adopted there would probably have been no difficulty.
All sorts of irregularities are and have been practised either because it is felt that the goodwill of a run-down business is insufficient to justify a successful takeover application unless operation of the vehicles for a few months can improve the figures; or through pure ignorance and lack of proper advice.
The net result of this type of manceuvre is usually a heavy loss to the licence-holder and the failure of his attempt to sell his vehicles and transfer the licences.