Involuntary Change of Normal User Justified ?
Page 44
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
COMMODITIES were of little account when considering a change of
normal user; it was the districts served which mattered. Section 5 (1) (3) of the 1933 Act referred to facilities—not the nature of the goods—and question 7 on the form G.V.la had no statutory authority with regard to commodities. This was submitted by Mr. E. A. Whitehead, to the North Western Deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. A. H. Jolliffe, at Liverpool on Monday.
The hearing of an application by Bailey's (Widnes), Ltd., for renewal of an A licence for a vehicle of 3i tons unladen, with modification of normal user (The Commercial Motor, April 10) was being continued. Mr. Whitehead said the company were seeking to add "asbestos goods and East Coast and the Midlands" to the Original user. The licence was transferred to the present applicants in September, 1953, when the normal user was "mainly foodstuffs, eggs and egg boxes, castings, steel and wire, within 25 miles of base."
By November, 1954, foodstuffs carrying had finished, because they could not economically collect from the docks. At the same time, there was a fall in egg traffic and they were forced to look for other work. By 1956, the carriage of asbestos goods amounted to 1.1,518 a year, and was now two-thirds of the.total traffic, carried all Over the country.
Questioned by Mr. G. H. P. Beames,. for the British Transport Commission, Mr. A. G. Bingham, a director, said they
did not seek any alteration until there was insufficient work for the vehicle. The asbestos company had refused to send a witless.
Mr, 13eames submitted that there hadbeen :a complete change of operations and the original inquiry had been specifically adjourned for evidence of need. Customers might be disinclined to send witnesses but no one was exempted from attending.
A number of large firms in the North Western Traffic Area would not send' witnesses, said Mr. Whitehead, andbecause of the loophole of contract licences, pressure could not be brought to_ bear on them. Refusing applications for this reason could . only harm operators. Strictly speaking, so, far as normal user was concerned, it was districts and not traffic that mattered and it should be remembered that it was an• A licence and the 25 miles was a legacy of nationalization. Mr. Jolliffe reserved his decision.