Mr. James Criticized at Appeal Hearing
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
noUNSEL for an Oldbury coach company criticized the West Midland Licensing Authority at an appeal hearing in Birmingham, last week, for the way in which he had dealt with lists of would-be passengers %thorn his clients had been unable to carry, when they were produced as evidence in support of an application for licence modifications.
Mr. J. Samuel-Gibbon, for Holland's Tours, Ltd., Oldbury, said the Authority had gone further than decimation. Re had " obliterated " large portions of the lists, and treated them as if they didn't Holland's Tours appealed against the Authority's refusal to grant certain modifications to an express service between West Bromwich and Margate. Before the application, which was heard on April 25, they had held a licence for the service, but with a different starting point.
Mr. Samuel-Gibbon said that the period of operation had been amended to the two August Bank Holiday weeks and a week on each side. The remainder had been refused.
Extra vehicle allowances had also been refused, except in the case of the 13ank Holiday week, when one had been allowed, and a staggered holiday week, which had been granted in full.
Referring to the lists of names of intending passengers who had been unable to get a seat on Holland's coaches to Margate because of heavy bookings, Mr. Samuel-Gibbon said they had been handed in as evidence of further need.
The point the Licensing Authority is making is that there may be an element of duplication in assessing passenger lists. But that these lists amount to nothing is, in my sob. mission, quite wrong," he said.
The lists had contained weekly numbers of would-be passengers, varying from 32 to 102. The Authority, Mr. W. P. James, had granted only one extra coach on the occasion when 102 passengers had handed in their names. "For anything less he grants nothing," he added.
He agreed with the Authority's view that there was always the possibility of the "element of duplication," But if the decision were allowed to stand as a precedent "wasn't it reasonably clear that the public would never have their wants catered for?" The lists were a normal type of evidence, and a clear case for an increase was fully proved, he submitted.
In giving his reasons for rejecting the application, the Authority had said of the lists: "They must be regarded as secondary lists of little importance," Mr. Samuel-Gibbon stated, He asked the Ministry of Transport inspector, Mr. A. N. C. Shelley, to advise the Minister, "as a matter of urgent public importance," that the appeal should be allowed.
"With the utmost respect to Mr. James, I ask that he be given directions that in future similar applications are not treated in this manner in the interests of the public," added Mr. Samuel-Gibbon.
Mr. R. A. Webb, for British Railways, said that on the evidence given at the original bearing a demand for only one extra vehicle had been proved by the applicants.
"The fact that none of the witnesses spoke of any difficulty in getting to Margate seems to show that no strong case has been made out by the appellants," he said.