No Evidence for Extra Vehicle
Page 65
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ON Monday, the Transport Tribunal, sitting in Edinburgh, dismissed an appeal by William S. Jamieson (Haulage), Ltd., against the refusal of Mr. W. F. Quin, Scottish Licensing Authority, to authorize an additional vehicle under an A licence, but not for the reason that led Mr. Quin to his decision.
The company had applied for an additional vehicle of 3i tons. Mr. R. McKenzie, who represented them, said that the applicants had been in business for 30 years. Miring the past two year they had had difficulty in securing transport andliad hired to an abnormal extent. Farm and agricultural lime was mainly carried.
Mr. McKenzie said that in 1951 the turnover was £5,891: in 1952, over £7,000, and in 1953, more than £8,000. Production by customers had shown a decided increase.
Mr. Quin had said that he thought the application should have been for a B licence, rather than an A licence. Mr. Hubert Hull, president of the Tribunal, commented: "We say nothing whatever about that suggestion. We deal solely with the application for an A licence."
The Tribunal did not think that the appellants had made out a case, quite apart front the slender evidence given at the hearing by the objectors, British Road Services.
The appellants were an oldestablished -haulnge concern, who, in addition, did a certain amount or merchants' business. It appeared that during the first three months of this year, the haulage business proper, far from being under pressure of work, was declining. It had not been shown that present facilities were inadequate. The appeal failed.