27-vehicle Bid Refused: Another C-hiring Case
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
B.T.C. and 28 Hauliers Object to Proposal to Substitute A-licence Work for C-hire
k_STRONGLY opposed application by Mr. Sam Anderson, Motherwell, for a new A licence for 7 vehicles (177-1tons) was refused by le Scottish Licensing Authority, in
• lasgow, on Monday. The vehicles, hich were to be acquired, were 'tended for "general goods in Great ritain."
The objectors were:— British 1 ransport Commission; Charles Allegan/ and Partners (Transport), Ltd.; W. G. uikshank, Aberdeen; J. G. Barrack, Aberdeen; . M. Barrack and Son, Ltd., Aberdeen;J. Joss id Sons, Aberdeen; Munro's Transport (Aberen). Ltd.; D. McKinnon (Transport), Ltd., ltnarnock; W. G. and G. Halliday, Falnackie; Smilbe, Ltd., Glasgow; E, Ferguson (Transin). Ltd., Ayr; J. Stamper and Co. (Haulage), d., Glasgow; Walker Bros., Glasgow; Road mires (Forth), Ltd., Denny; Datkeith Tran.sport d Storage Co,, Ltd., Dalkeith; Road Services aledonian), Ltd., Dumfries; I. Hunter and Sons, ishaw; Bruce Lindsay Bros., Ltd., Leith; John tullay and Co. (Contractors), Ltd., Dundee; McCallum and Sons, Bannockburn; El. M, tith (Transport), Ltd., Wishaw; Edward Ferry, d., Edinburgh; Dundee Express Deliveries; Wm. unikon Motors. Ltd.. Ruthcrglen; Saddlers anspon, Ltd.. Leith; Inter-City Transport and ading Co., Ltd., Glasgow; J. Hemphill, Ltd., asgow; Alex. Scott (Contractors), Ltd., asgow; and Hell and Co, (Transport). Ltd., inburgh.
At the original hearing in June,. Mr. McKenzie, for Mr. Anderson, said the application were granted 17 eightieelers and 10 tippers would replace 'vehicles used for C hiring. Sixty'o of these were sixand eightteeters and 19 were tippers.
Customers Giving up C-hiring A fleet of 48 vehicles and two trailers . special A licence was based at 1whouse, Manchester, Birmingham, a-cliff and London. In January, his ent was granted a 8 licence for 10 ;tit-wheeled tippers totalling 80 tons. iere were approximately 20 vehicles C licence.
Mr. Anderson said 10 of his customers ...c1 C-hiring margins but now wanted give them up. Special A-licensed hides were being acquired to replace it type of transport. He did not rmally buy and sell special A-licensed tides, but some had been sold muse it had been agreed before bids re made for transport units.
[he present application was made er the last of the disposal lists had ,eared, and he was able to assess : need. His present A-licensed fleet s fully occupied.
Dross-examined about the I.M.G. derson Drivers' Hire Agency, Mr. derson said this business was run by wife; he had nothing to do with it. tiring customers paid the agency for vers, and he was paid for the hire vehicles.
Xi the question of back loads, Mr. derson said if a driver took a load fertilizers to Birmingham, arrangents would be made beforehand. The tiring disc would be posted back from Birmingham and the driver might be re-hired to another customer in Liverpool.
The drivers were based at Newhouse, and were paid' by the agency. There was about 20 per cent, dead mileage on C hiring, for which Anderson paid the drivers.
The chairman, Mr. W. F. Quin, said that whilst the agency might be operating within the law, it appeared to be a means of getting round the licensing laws. That could be determined only by the ordinary courts.
Results of Investigation
After an adjournment for a breakdown of the applicant's figures, Mr. Quin referred to an investigation by his officers into Mr. Anderson's C-hiring records for June. The result showed that only nine vehicles were used on C-hire for the customers mentioned in the application. It would be unreal to ignore this information, he said.
Mr. Anderson said that when the check was made log sheets for only four customers were checked. Questioned about the number of vehicles available for hire, Mr. Anderson said that when A-licensed vehicles were replaced, they were used for C-hire. There was a great many available, but they were not always in use. Fifty were now available, the others having been disposed of.
Newhouse was his primary base. "Foreign "vehicles were used to relieve the pressure. He estimated that two special A-licensed vehicles could do the work of three on C-hire.
He said that by changing the discs, C-licensed vehicles were used for C hiring.
With the support of the three other objectors, Mr. W. R. Grieve, for 26 road objectors, submitted that on two grounds no prima facie case had been made. Drivers of Mr. Anderson's C-hire vehicles were not the servants of the customers, but his own. The Licensing Authority was entitled to decide that these operations were not in accordance with the law and to refuse .the application.
Secondly, there was no prima facie case for 27 vehicles. In June, 83 vehicles were said to be used on C hire, but on Monday the figure was modified to 50. There was no real evidence beyond that provided by the Authority's examiners, which showed nine vehicles for which drivers were provided by Mrs. Anderson in June.
There was no accurate information of what the new A-licence vehicles were to be used for or of need. Although customers were entitled to change their method of transport, they must have a good reason.
, Mr. McKenzie replied that there had been evidence from four substantial customers who wished to discontinue C hiring. The fact that husband and wife were concerned in this matter was irrelevant.
The Appeal Tribunal, in a case affecting the applicants, had said that customers did not need to show any good reason why they wanted a change. Mr. Anderson was offering to surrender all his hiring allowances and was entitled to vehicles to replace them.
No Proof of Illegality
Mr. Quin said Mr. Grieve's comments about alleged illegalities must be disregarded. There might be doubts about the bona fides of the case, but there was no proof.
It was a substantial application and would require the clearest proof of need. Evidence showed that there was a number of concerns willing to employ Mr. Anderson if the application was granted. This was the preliminary proof normally required. Further evidence was needed that these concerns had not had, and were not likely to have, their goods carried by existing facilities, including C-hiring.
Witnesses had all expressed their satisfaction with the existing operations and their willingness to continue if the application was not granted. Common sense, apart from law, suggested that in such a case there was no question of the need for additional vehicles.