Railways Press for Revocation : Normal-user Switch Challenged
Page 48
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A SUBMISSION by British Railways that the A licences of Richmond
Road Garage, Ltd., Sheffield, should be revoked or suspended was made to Mr. 1. H. A. Randolph, Yorkshire Deputy Licensing Authority, at Sheffield last week. The company were applying for a change of normal user from "haulage within 25 miles" to "75 per cent. long distance," and the railways' submission referred to four A-licensed and 10 special-A vehicles.
Mr. J. Mellor, for the applicants, said that three-quarters of their work concerned steel, the majority of this being for Arthur Lee and Sons, Ltd. When the A licence was last renewed in 1954, there were only two vehicles, whose work was mainly within 25 miles.
Two years ago, Lee changed their transport policy and switched long-distance work from British Road Services to private hauliers, giving B.R.S. local work. The company had acquired special-A vehicles, but there had also been a gradual switch of the A vehicles mainly to longdistance runs.
Questioning Mr. K. J. Sherwood, a director, Mr: T. B. Atkinson, for B.R., suggested that the change had been made rather quickly, leaving B.R.S. with the less remunerative local work. Yet some eight months after, when applying for the substitution of a heavier vehicle on A licence before Maj. F. S. Eastwood, Yorkshire Licensing Authority, an undertaking was given that the lorry would be 75 per ceni. on local work. The grant had depended on this answer, which was false, and would not have been made had the true position been known.
In reply, Mr. Sherwood said that the special-A vehicles were used at first and the change-over of the others had been gradual. He added that Lee's traffic manager, Mr. Coupland, was not present.
Although there had been no. agreement before the road-rail negotiating cornmittee, he had not been advised that his licence would be in jeopardy. Mr. Sherwood said he found that returning empty from half of the long-distance journeys was still remunerative.
Although a B.R.S. witness was present, Mr. Atkinson submitted that the only objection was from B.R„ and he would not call evidence. In view of what was said before Maj. Eastwood, they would press the objection that the applicants had made a false statement and had failed to notify a change of normal user.
Adjourning the inquiry, Mr. Randolph said that the applicants must give more details of their operations involving the change. He considered that although he Authority had been told that the work was 75 per cent, local, it was stretching the matter too far to say there had been deceit. He would also require the attendance of Mr. Coupland.