Difficulties in the Darts Case
Page 47
Page 48
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
INQUIRYREVEALS FLAW IN GV9 PROCEDURE E irpuThVE cimAtsOTRIAI calling upon Davis Brothers (Haulage) Lid. under Section 178 (1) (b) of the 1960 ct to show cause why their licence should not be revoked, suspended or curtailed. Metropolitan Licensing Authority, Mr. D. L R. Muir, may well have done the miry a good turn. For, apart from the fact that he has brought home to many iiers the importance of preventive maintenance, his inquiry has highlighted several s in the law as it applies to vehicle prohibitions and endorsed and echoed the iments expressed during "The Commercial Motor" fleet management conference year that the standard of vehicles turned out by the manufacturers leaves a lot to Iesired.
s exclusively reported in this journal week. Mr. Muir took great exception iggestions made by representatives of is Brothers that their vehicles had singled out and stopped for examion while others were allowed to =el. He publicly announced that if vehicle examiner had done this. he been acting outside official instrucs. Notwithstanding this, however, it y opinion that any unbiased onlooker he inquiry might be excused for ing the impression that Davis :hers were getting the LA's " full .ment". Mr. Muir had taken the mal step of being represented by his Dr area mechanical engineer. Mr.
Toyne. who called no less than 10 de examiners—the. majority of
m had to travel from other traffic S (two came from the North Western ) at public expense—to give evidence.
s each gave evidence, the difference pproach to the question of what was iidered to be a defect warranting iediate prohibition and one which tired only a delayed prohibition. was kedly apparent. A typical reply
one examiner, when asked about a icular item on an immediate GV9, this: "Well. it could have become terous"—an. attitude referred to by M. H. Jackson-Lipkin, representing company, as " an abundance of ion".
study of the section of the Act which s power to prohibit the use of unfit Is vehicles reveals that guidance on question of discretion is lacking. ion 184 (1) begins thus: " If on the ection of a goods vehicle it appears
n examiner or certifying officer that vehicle. owing to any defects therein. r is likely to become. unfit for service the defects have been remedied, he prohibit the use of the vehicle on a for the carriage of goods."
cloyed prohibitions are dealt with in
manner: "(3) Where, in the ion of the person imposing the proion, the defects can be remedied in a period not exceeding 10 days arc not defects which involve mime
risk to public safety, a notice . specify the period within which the
defects can, in that person's opinion, be remedied."
As will be seen from the italics (which are mine) the examiner has full discretion to prevent a loaded vehicle from going on its way and. what appears not to be realized by some (and Mr. • Muir had to be reminded about this at-the inquiry) is the fact that there is no appeal against the issue of a GV9. Thus an operator cannot challenge the opinion of a vehicle examiner if he disagrees that the vehicle is unfit. The only form of appeal is against the refusal of an examiner to lift a prohibition (by use of form CV 10). Regulation 23 of the Goods Vehicles fLicences and Prohibitions) Regulations. 1960. lays down the cumbersome procedure to be followed.
This whole unsatisfactory procedure was highlighted in the Davis Brothers' case when evidence was given of a vehicle being issued with a GV9 in the Oxford area and being cleared in the Metropolitan area without an repairs being done to it whatsoever.
Another disturbing feature about GV9s came out during the Davis Brothers' inquiry. it was revealed that many GV% had been issued against vehicles which were in " outside " workshops under repair following accidents. While it is a good thing that a vehicle should he inspected and pronounced as roadworthy after such repairs are completed, one wonders whether it is fair to use the GV9 form in the first place. For once one has been issued, the fact is recorded in the licensee's file as a black mark which, as in the case of Davis Brothers, can be used against him.
Returning to the case in question, great play was made by Davis Brothers about the generally poor state of new vehicles, and skilful questioning of Ministry witnesses on the part of Mr. Jackson-lipkin brought out these remarks from a senior vehicle examiner in the Metropolitan area: I quote: " On lighter types of vehicles there are failings in the construction of chassis. It would seem that the design is lacking in such things as hanger brackets, crossmembers and inadequately sized shackle pins. whilst transmissions in certain cases are poorl constructed. One manufac
urer ", he continued, " turns out a vehicle in which most brackets are riveted. The hanger brackets are integrated with the cross-members. So that very early in the vehicle's life we find rivets coming loose, requiring them to he chopped out and a knock-in lit-bolt Jilted."
The question of the GV9 procedure and the suggestion that new vehicles were sometimes not up 16 scratch were all put forward as matters of mitigation on behalf of Davis Brothers, whose fate depends on discretion–the LA's.
Reminding Mr. Muir of this, Mr. Jackson-Lipkin submitted that when the original Act was in force, there was a remarkable and admirable provision which no longer obtained-. Under Section 8 of the 1933 Road and Rail Traffic Act it was a condition of every licence that, among other things, authorized vehicles were maintained in a .fit and serviceable condition. .Parliament. Mr. Jackson-Lipkin pointed out. chose not to include. that section in the 1960 Act. Instead. it indicatedthat 'the:matter was to be dealt with in two entirely different svays---prosecution under Section 184 (5). and inquiry by the LA under Section 178.
In calling on the company to show cause under Section 178_ Mr. Muir has chosen a difficult path. with. in view of all the evidence, a difficult decision to make. Not only have Davis Brothers shown themselves to he 63ntrite but, under the guidaace of Mr. Muir's own officers, they have now instituted maintenance schemes. In the light of this, can it be in the public interest to take off the road nearly 200 vehicles?
-Meanwhile, manufacturers -would 110. well to look at a transcript of the • case.
(whose activities, coincidentally. are described on page 74 of this issue). Against this, six local independent hauliers and British Railways objected on the usual grounds that. if granted. facilities would be in excess of requirements. During the hearing (which lasted two, whole days) suggestions were made that Jameson was accepting goods that they "had not a hope in hell's chance of carrying". There were also guarded allegations that Jameson was ratecutting. Mr. A. T. Lowth, who appeared for most of the objectors, summed up the cause of the trouble during his crossexamination of Mr. A. C. Jameson. "It was not a question of shortage of transport in the area but a shortage of contractors who are prepared to work for Jameson at 10 per cent less than the proper rate", he said. Of course, apart from clause (e) of Section 178 (I) of the Road Traffic Act. 1960 (which allows an LA to take action against a haulier who has been persistently charging uneconomical rates. thereby placing other hauliers at an undue or unfair disadvantage) there is nothing in the Act to prevent a haulier acting as a clearing house or to stop him canvassing customers, as is so frequently done by British Railways.
As for the allegation that a haulier takes on more work than he can handle —every haulier who sub-contracts does so. and it may have been this last item that caused the Maj.-Gen. to delay his decision, as he has the power to control this.
This was a simple case of a group of southern hauliersobjecting. in concert. to a northerner taking business away from them. Surely their remedy lies in offering an even better service to their customers.
Mr. Else takes lead over documents
I NOTICE that the West Midland i Licensing Authority, Mr. John Else, has now taken positive action to ensure that financial and statistical evidence is made available to himself and interested parties at least seven days prior to the hearing a an application. This was suggested in +` Licensing Casebook" on July 30, as a result of time remarks of the Transport Tribunal in the recent G. W. Pell (Kirton) appeal.
Mr. Else, in West Midland Applications and Deciskniv dated July 29, quotes the remarks of the Tribunal and states that with effect from August 30 "the Licensing Authority requests that a copy of any financial or statistical evidence which is to be used at a public inquiry in support of an application or objection shall be forwarded to his office ond to all parties to the proceedings at least seven days prior to the public inquiry ".
It has taken the Tribunal seven years to get this limited response from a Licensing Authority (no other Authority has troubled yet to make this a condition of a hearing) for it was in the B.T.C. v. T. W. Haines appeal (1958 No. U.2) that they said this: "Over and over again we have said that whether by regulation or by the practice of Licensing Authorities. copies of such documents should be supplied both to the Licensing Authority and to the other side seven days before the public inquiry." Perhaps Mr. Else will be able to persuade his brother LAs to follow his lead when next they are in conference, and so prevent the regulation mooted by the Tribunal in 1958.
March 8 this year. United had been asked to provide additional journeys and to cater for displaced rail passengers. But some of these services had been unremunerative, and the company had alternative facilities in the vicinity.
For United and West Yorkshire, Mr. J. L R. Croft said they had operated Service 91 for many years. and could cater for the traffic. He thought they were entitled to such remunerative traffic as the district had to offer, to offset other services.
Badly Presented Application Fails
THE Eastern Traflic Commissioners had little hesitation last week in refusing an application by M. J. Goodall (Crusader Coaches) of Ipswich to run excursions or tours from Woodbridge, Felixstowe, Stowmarket and Colchester to the Continent via Southampton.
In support of his application, Mr. Goodall presented eight letters. He said that the picking-up point in Felixstowe had been amended to meet the objections made by Felixstowe UDC.
The tours were to be of four days' duration and would start on Maundy Thursday until the last Thursday in September. Although not stated in the application, the tours would, in the early part of the year, run to Paris and Versailles and during the latter part of the period to another part of the Continent.
The Commissioners said that letters alone in support of an application were not enough and applicants were expected to state their destinations.
Illegal Operators Warned
AT a sitting in Durham last week, the Northern Traffic Commissioners adjourned an application by Mr. R. Harrison, a coach proprietor of Wingate, for an excursion and tours licence enabling him to carry football supporters from Ludworth, Durham, to Sunderland's home matches. Mr. Harrison admitted that he had been operating the service illegally for 10 years, under the belief that it was covered by his operator's licence. He said he had been fined for his offence, and now wanted to regularize the position in time for the opening of the football season.
Northern General Transport Co. Ltd.. United Automobile Services Ltd. and Durham and District Services objected to the application, claiming that existing facilities were adequate. A decision was deferred pending inquiries whether existing services could pick up-Ludworth football supporters.
Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, chairman of the Commissioners", gave a uarning to coach owners who "creamed" traffic by running illegal services. Repeated warnings had been given in the past on this matter. he stated, and offenders were not only liable to prosecution but could have their licences suspended or removed altogether.