1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172 
Why Tribunal Allowed Extra Articulated Vehicle
Page 118
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
REASONS for their decision on an, appeal by Mr. C. P. Warner. of Bury St. Edmunds (The Commercial Motor, February 7), were given by the Transport Tribunal in a written judgment issued this week. Mr.' Warner appealed against
• the decision of the Eastern Licensing Authority to grant him only one platform lorry of 3 tons unladen on an A licence, instead of three (including two_ articulated) for which he applied.
, After a five-day hearing, the Tribunal decided that he should have one extra vehicle but an articulated outfit instead of the rigid platform lorry. A crossappeal by the British Transport Commission was dismissed.
No points of principle arose in the 1544 appeal, which was decided solely on the facts.
The Tribunal thought the pressure on Mr. Warner's fleet was much greater than the Licensing Authority believed. It was working six days a week, and Mr. Heading, the applicant's most important customer, had said that instead of being able to load between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m., Mr. Warner's vehicles arrived at all times and frequently were unable to load until nearly midnight.
It was necessary to employ nine drivers for six vehicles, and every day at least one lorry had to be withdrawn for maintenance or repair. The fleet could not be properly maintained. There was evidence that customers' requirements were increasing and called for extra transport facilities. – The availability of vehicle, i from other operators, including British Road Services, was spasmodic and not suitable for the continuous daily requirements of at least three of Mr. Warner's customers, Mr. Roy Laurence, manager of the East Harling depot of Roudham Transport, Ltd., one of the respondents, said that he refused to carry the whole of Mr. Heading's traffic when it was offered to him because of the rate of als. a ton, although both his company and B.R.S. had previously accepted that rate when they shared the traffic.. Mr. Laurence also said that B.R.S. were pleased when Mr. Heading took his business away,