The Contract Licence "Ramp"
Page 44
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
N. Act in recent years, however rashly conceived or hurriedly thrown together, has been interpreted and applied with greater severity than the 1933 Road and Rail Traffic Act. Were haulage contractors some unwelcome and alien minority thrust upon an unwilling community, their interests could, in my opinion, hardly be treated with more prejudice.
Typical of this attitude is the treatment meted out to B-licence holders. At the outset, certain Licensing Authorities erred on the side of generosity in dealing with this class of licence holder, the reason being, no doubt, partly the result of applications arising from claimed tonnage. For some reason that we are able only to assume, there was a complete reversal of this policy during the first licensing period, and it became the general practice to impose the most restrictive limits on this type of operator.
New Status for B-licensees.
The Hill and Long case, with its ultimate triumphal emergence from the House of Lords, completely altered the status of this class of haulier. Put into plain English, this judgment affirmed, with added force, that of the Court of Appeal, that there was no reason why a B-licence holder should be restricted, unless there were some special grounds for so doing ; further, that a B licence was not to be regarded as a restricted licence and that it had never been so intended.
After the Appeal Court decision, I drew attention in The Commercial Motor to the vital importance of this case. It jeopardized the legality of every one of the miserable restricted grants already given.
It gave hundreds of haulage contractors the right to apply for a fresh hearing. It could have been the turning point in the persecution of this type of licence holder. Unfor B30 tunately, the only parties that recognized the importance of the principles involved were the railways (which considered them so vital that nothirig less than the judgment of the House of Lords would satisfy them) and the administrators of the Act, who were so alarmed at the implications which were thereby created, that they devised—as, at the time, I suggested they might—a new application form.
A Clandestine Move.
This move was far more subtle than bringing out a new regulation, which might have been challenged as being outside the scope of the Act. It helped to regularize the existing position and, at the same time, skilfully made the applicant responsible for cutting his own throat, without even dispensing with the muchdebated word "normally."
Having thus safeguarded their position, the Authorities imposed restrictions with even greater vigour than before, and in complete defiance of the House of Lords' decision. Having regard to the above facts, it is not surprising that a further expedient has been devised for the discomforture of road-transport.
An attempt is now being made— and, unfortunately, is succeeding—to compel certain applicants for A or B licences to accept Contract A licences. Further, the Appeal Tribunal has now, as I have come to expect, given its blessing to another interpretation of the Act inimical to the interests of the independent haulier. It has, in fact, affirmed a fresh principle that Section 7 (1) was designed to be obligatory and not permissive. This is the clause :
An Obligatory Clause.
"If . . . the applicant satisfies the licensing authority that any of the authorized vehicles will he used exclusively for the purposes of a contract entered into by the applicant with a person carrying on a trade or business (not being the business of carrying. . . goods) for the carriage of goods for or in connection with that trade or business during any continuous period of not less than one year, the licensing authority shall . . grant the application so far as regards those vehicles, subject to conditions for securing that those vehicles shall be used exclusively for the purposes of the contract and shall at the termination of the contract cease to be authorized vehicles
The Appeal Tribunal is already noted for the extraordinary nature of some of its decisions. It would be no exaggeration to say that it has frequently taken my breath away. The latest pearl, in the Southern Railway v. Hardy case, reveals the extent to which official prejudice is prepared to go. I present it to you exactly as it appears in the publication of Sweet and Maxwell, Ltd.
Held, by the Appeal Tribunal, that this means that the Commissioner must not grant an ordinary A licence for vehicles which will be principally used for the business of a single customer, so that they are generally loaded only with the goods of that customer, even though none of the vehicles will ever be used for the purpose of a contract for the carriage of goods for a year."
No Contract—No Vehicle.
In other words, if you have a demand for an extra vehicle which is caused principally by the operations of one of your customers, you must ask him for a contract. If he will not grant one, you cannot do the work. This applies equally to those who are already operating discretionary vehicles under similar conditions.
Before going any further, it will be as well to examine the nature of a contract licence. It is clear from the section quoted that a contract licence is one which permits a haulier to carry goods under contract to another firm (not a carrying company), provided that the contract is for not less than a year and that the vehicle is used exclusively for this contract.
However desirable this kind of business may be from the point of view of the many big concerns which specialize in it, the disadvantages for the average haulier are many, the most emphatic being that, at the end of the contract, unless it be renewed or another obtained, the vehicle ceases to be authorized.
This is the licence which is being pressed on applicants who apply for additional tonnage, basing their applications on the increase of their turnover with one or two customers. This position in itself is bad enough. It is a thousand times worse when the applicant has but one vehicle, on which there already exists a B licence, and is " advised " to abandon his B-licence renewal application, obtain a contract and apply for a contract licence.
This recently happened in a case before the North-Western Licensing Authority, the applicant having being established for two years, but 80 per cent, of his work being for one firm. Had not this unfair procedure already received the endorsement of the Appeal Tribunal, one Could hardly imagine any more glaring abuse of a Licensing Authority's powers than that he should connive at such an injustice.
It is perfectly plain that Section 7 (1) was inserted to enable firms who specialize in contract work, and who, therefore, are almost identifiable with C-licence holders, to obtain a suitable licence with the minimum of delay and red tape. It may be further assumed that the reason for the creation of this form of licence was dictated by the same motives that actuated those who drafted the Act, when they invented an easy and advantageous form of licence for the ancillary user.
Soothing Ancillary Users.
In ,other words, the section was specifically designed to prevent the . irritation of the powerful ancillary group, and thus avoid the outcry that . would have greeted any interference with its privileges.
No one in his right senses could suggest that it is anything but a permissive clause, that is to say, permissive so far as the contractor is concerned.. The only person upon whom it is an obligation (apart from certain safeguards) is the Licensing Authority. It is an obligation on the Authority which, if requested, he must fulfil. Its wording, its very position in the Act, in juxtaposition to the claimed-tonnage provisions, indicates the exact value which it was intended that it should receive.
To suggest that it creates any kind of compulsion for the haulage contractor is manifestly absurd. Even those who so brilliantly designed this • " charter of co-ordination" might be expected to appreciate that, in the same way that you can take a horse to water, you can also ask a business house for a contract—with a similar • negative result. To furbish up this clause and use it as an additional weapon to hamstring licence holders, is only on a par with the prejudice which, in my opinion, has Characterized the administration of the Act since its inception.
One cannot imagine anything more likely to disturb relations between hauliers and their employing firms than a persistence in this principle. In the first place, it is absolutely contrary to the policy evolved by the Licensing Authorities in determining those applicants whO shall be entitled to claim additional tonnage, namely, that increased turnover should result from increased business on the part of regular customers and not from abstracted traffic.
Reward for Good Work.
It is obvious that the contractor who gives good service to the client will be encouraged by more and regular work. In all probability, when some factor causes an expansion in business, he will be the first to be given the opportunity of increased haulage. 11 he accepts the advantages which every contractor knows to accrue as the result of steady employment, he runs the risk of being told to apply for a contract licence when he comes up for renewal, or desires an additional vehicle.
Therefore, unless he wishes to be bound hand and foot with a Contract licence,' lie must refuse the proffered work, allow some other contractor to reap the reward which rightly belongs to him, and run the risk of annoyifig the .employing firth, simply so that he can keep his work and his customers ' sufficiently flexible to warrant the continuance and expansion of his existing A or B licence.
In the second place, it places a premium on inefficiency and bad service. The haulier who does not merit continuous work and is forced to seek his business here, there and everywhere, will be able to produce better evidence, when required, than his more efficient competitor.
Threat to Contract Specialists.
In the third place, it constitutes a grave threat to an important section of the haulage industry. Those who specialize in this class of work will find their businesses threatened by numerous small operators who have lost their original contracts and must obtain another, however unsatisfactory the terms, or go out of business.
It is -only from a bureaucratic administration that such splendidly muddled principles could be evolved: Were it only the usual and innocent
mismanagement of Tweedledum and Tweedledee, performing their duet amidst a confusing tangle of red tape, we might be content to be amused and await an early return to sanity. Unfortunately, these persistent injustices do not savour of foolery ; they are too obvious and too determined to be the chance disorders of a bemused intelligence.
The best excuse that officialdom can find for the misuse of Section 7 (1) is to be found in the statement -of Mr. Gleeson Robinson on the Ridgewell case. He said :—
" If I did not require applicants to avail themselves of Section 7, sub-section 1, but granted increased tonnage on the evidence of increased work for particular customers, the applicants could secure dual grants on the same evidence as they could obtain A licences for vehicles on the evidence of the needs of special customers, and thereafter obtain further tonnage by obtaining a contract and demanding a contract licence."
No Danger of Dual Grants.
In . view of the careful records of evidence which are kept by the Authorities, such a proceeding would be fraught with such danger to the applicant when he renewed his ordinary A licence that the contention is not deserving of. further comment. Such a, position_ could become .a menace• only • :were the Authorities .blind to the slender opportunity of a ..dual .grant which presents itself. The.fact that they are aware of the hypothetical danger, as shown by the above statement, at once nullifies it.
There. are thousands of tons of discretionary A tonnage on the road and this contract-licence Y ramp " is going to be one of the principal methods of. attack when these licences come up for renewal. Furthermore, I am not sure that it cannot or will not . be used . for the sabotage of haulage contractors who were estab
lished in the basic year. In any case, many hauliers of this class have some . discretionary . tonnage upon which this principle can be aired.
The Hill and Long case and all that. it involves provide a concrete example of what can be "got away with "in the face of an • apathetic industry. We now have an association which speakswith the authority of .one voice. I'hope that it will early turn its attention to the contractlicence ''.-ramp!.! before -another and even 'larger nail for the boffin of roadtranspcirti already forged, is .driven home. '•A. D.-J.