Tribunal hears low loader appeal
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• "If this appeal were allowed it would, in effect, take away a B licence held by the company since carriers' licensing began," Mr. John Marshall told the Transport Tribunal on Tuesday. Mr Marshall was representing R. J. Free and Sons Ltd, respondents in an appeal by Docks Haulage Co Ltd against the grant to R. J. Free by Mr A. C. Shepherd, the South Eastern deputy LA, of a low-loader in substitution for a lfton drawbar trailer on B licence. .The Tribunal's decision was reserved.
Explaining that it was an objector's appeal, Mr K. Shiemann, representing Docks Haulage, said the respondents had four tippers on C licence and one tipper and the drawbar trailer on B licence. It had been granted a low-loader, conditioned "roadmaking and building materials and plant within 20 miles of Newbury", in substitution for the drawbar trailer. Mr Shiemann later claimed it was, in effect, a vehicle addition as a new low-loader could hardly be substituted for a lfton drawbar trailer, He said that at the public inquiry R. J. Free had only letters to support his application. None of these was written in the ordinary course of business, none referred to radius and only five mentioned any difficulty in obtaining similar transport facilities. The president of the Tribunal Mr G. D. Squibb QC, noted that two of the letters bore the same signature and added: "If Mr Yorke were here he would probably be able to tell us that they were written on the same typewriter".
Mt Shiemann said that Docks Haulage had three low-loaders-12-ton, 25-ton, and 35-ton--based at Southampton, on A licence, restricted to a 200-mile radius and, referring to Free's new low-loader, in closing he added: "I strongly suspect that the vehicle would not be used for road-making and building materials at all, but exclusively for plant".
Mr Marshall, who was also a director of R. J. Free, said the acquisition of the low-loader was no more than a substitution as the drawbar trailer was now obsolescent. It was primarily acquired for C-licence operation—about 70 per cent of the time—and it was intended that it should only be available for hire and reward for the remainder.
He agreed that letters were not necessarily the best evidence but thought that as five were from public authorities they possibly carried more weight. He thought the claim by Docks Haulage that it could undertake any available work "on the way through the area" would be "extremely haphazard", especially as it was based 37 miles away.