AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Would standardized forms shorten public inquiries?

14th January 1966
Page 41
Page 41, 14th January 1966 — Would standardized forms shorten public inquiries?
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?

rrHE Transport Tribunal are often asked by counsel appearing before them to offer guidance to the road haulage industry. Such a plea was made, in effect, by Miss E. Havers recently when she represented Ipswich Delivery Service Ltd. (COMMERCIAL MOTOR, December 17). As reported last week, the appeals were dismissed.

Miss Havers told the Tribunal that at the public inquiry Mr. M. H. Jackson-Lipkin had advised his clients, Ipswich Delivery Services, not to use the standardized Form F used in the Eastern Area to record revenue earned from the principal customers under each licence category. Instead, chartered accountants had "gone to enormous trouble" to provide proper figures, even going to the lengths of giving evidence on the make-up of their figures. Miss Havers, in quoting the deputy LA's criticism that the company had "flagrantly disregarded" the Authority's wishes in relation to the use of Form F, probably hoped that the Tribunal would condemn the form out of hand.

I was not surprised that the Tribunal's judgment contained no specific denunciation of the disputed form. Indeed, during the hearing of the Appeal, the president hinted that he did not share counsel's' views about the use of the form. Mr. Gazdar (the Eastern deputy LA) had "had a bleat" about the nonuse of the requisite form, said Mr. Squibb; he had not decided the case on this issue alone.

No Reliable Information

The Tribunal's judgment dealt with this contentious issue in a few terse lines, which I quote: "Much time was occupied before us in attempting to reconcile various apparent inconsistencies between the three sets of documents certified by the accountants. Despite the assistance which we received from the advocates on both sides, we find ourselves without any reliable information as to the respective earnings of the vehicles authorized under the A licence and the B licence. All that we can deduce from the documents with any degree of certainty is that, notwithstanding the loss of a number of customers and decreases in the amounts of work done for other customers, the appellant has succeeded in increasing to some extent the total earnings of its A and B licensed vehicles."

Without taking sides on the merits of the particular Eastern area form, it is surely reasonable for any LA to require applicants to provide information in a standardized way. The justification for fleet increases can be assessed more accurately if the growth of the business can be verified by an examination of the returns in previous years; and justice can be done as between applicants if the same yardstick is applied to all.

There may, in fact, be strong arguments for the use of a standard national form or set of forms by applicants—established hauliers —seeking additional facilities. Any procedure which will simplify and shorten hearings at public inquiries would be welcomed by road hauliers.

Bureaucracy Run Mad'

As an indication of the complexity, not to mention the cost, of mounting a substantial application, it is noteworthy that some 150 documents were submitted on behalf of the parties involved during the three day public inquiry to determine the Ipswich Delivery Service application. This is a fantastic illustration of bureaucracy run mad—and in the "practical" road transport industry!

Some of this load of paper was, incidentally, of dubious quality. The Tribunal noted some "potentially valuable" evidence of the appellant's lack of sufficient transport facilities in the shape of a schedule of unsatisfied customers' requests. "Unfortunately", say the Tribunal, "an examination of this schedule does not incline us to accept it at its face value. In the first place it is not an original document. According to Mr. Collis, it was compiled from notes recorded on a scribble pad by his brother or a girl in the appellant's office. Only two cases were within the personal knowledge of the Mr. Collis who gave evidence and one of those, he said, he 'half dealt with'. The majority of the requests set out in the schedule were either from regular customers of the appellant or in respect of furniture removals. Unfortunately, however, although the time at which the request was received was meticulously recorded, in no case is there any record of how long notice was being given to the appellant. This seems to us to be a most material omission. A haulier cannot expect to have sufficient vehicles licensed to enable him to accept any work that may be offered to him, however short the notice may be."

"Original" Documents

The two points made here by the Tribunal are very significant, and road hauliers who are active in the traffic courts would do well to note them carefully.

Every experienced traffic operator will smile about the "original document" point. If the Tribunal were to insist on the submission of all authentic "original documents" prepared under pressure by traffic staff, usually during hurried telephone conversations with customers, what a wonderful selection would be revealed! The brevity with which quite complicated traffic instructions are recorded would perhaps surprise the Tribunal.

It seems transparently clear to me that no genuine "original document" prepared under pressure by a traffic operator could properly be used in evidence at a public inquiry unless as a basis for an amplified version prepared at leisure. The full document could, and should, contain all the background details normally known to the traffic operator and carried—quite securely and safely—in his head. But I am not at all sure that a juridical examination of the amplified document prepared from a roughly scribbled note would readily distinguish a "true" from a "cooked" document.

Blank Entries

If one attempts to turn the clock back, even for an hour, in a busy traffic office, with the most honest intentions in the world it is not easy to record the factual position obtaining at a given time. If anyone doubts that, let him try to recall all the details of a telephone chat at 9 a.m. after a dozen further calls an hour or so later.

Of course, established operators may provide printed "Traffic Order and Enquiry" forms for completion during telphone calls from customers. But even when this is done, and the form provides space for recording all the information normally required, the pressure of events may mean that some entries are left blank. If they are completed subsequently, or a fair copy is made later, does this constitute an original document?

The second point is more easily disposed of. It does, indeed, seem odd to record meticulously the time of a telephoned traffic inquiry without at the same time recording the required date of collection. Road transport would certainly be a shambles if this basic information were not recorded, and acted upon.

These flaws in the presentation of a heavily documented case were noted by the Tribunal and road hauliers must draw their own conclusions as to their validity. For the reasons given, I doubt if the last word has been said as to what constitutes "an original document" in the context of a road haulier's traffic office.


comments powered by Disqus