• Home
• Used vehicles
• Product news
• Dealer news
• Compliance
• Buying advice
• Archive

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256

Tipper Appeal Allowed in Part

Zoom page

12th November 1965

Page 71

Page 71, 12th November 1965 — Tipper Appeal Allowed in Part

Close

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Please select an option... Headline has errors Article text has errors Article is incomplete Submit

IN Wednesday the Transport Tribunal /sitting in London, part-allowed an . >peal by J. and M. Taylor, of Chorley, arm. The appeal was against a conlion imposed by the North Western icensing Authority on the granting of a. triation of the firm's B licence • last At that lime the licence covered an 1-ton vehicle hauling specified road and ailding materials within 50 miles for 14 amed customers. The application for a ariation was to add a 61-ton tipper to aul road and building materials.

The firm was seeking to enlarge the taterial it could carry from the specified )ad and building material to road and uilding material in general, and asked tat no limitations be put on the tipper ith regard to named customers.

The LA granted the application as :quested, hut imposed the condition that le tipper he used for only four named ustomers. If the Tribunal was not prepared to remove the limitation, the appellants asked that the limitation be the same as on the 8+-torCvehicle-14, plus one new customer.

Mr. J. S. Lawton, appearing for seven haulage firms who opposed the application, said the LA had been generous when he made the grant in terms of four named customers for the tipper and this would not affect the interests of the respondents.

He agreed that the 8+-ton vehicle was doing a large amount of work for some of its 14 customers but not all of them. "In view of the appellant's evidence at the inquiry, the LA limited the grant to four customers. In doing this he must have taken into account the appellant's flimsy evidence." submitted Mr. Lawton.

Allowing the appeal in part, the Tribunal ruled that the tipper would be restricted to the 15 customers at present served by the 81-ton vehicle.