AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

M.A.T. Appeal Clarified in Written Judgment

17th January 1964
Page 43
Page 43, 17th January 1964 — M.A.T. Appeal Clarified in Written Judgment
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

AS reported in The Commercial Motor, December 27 last, an appeal by M.A.T. Transport Ltd., London, against a decision of the Metropolitan deputy licensing Authority, has been allowed by the Transport Tribunal.

Last June the deputy Authority refused to allow M.A.T. Transport to add an articulated vehicle to its B licence and to restrict the use of another B-licensed vehicle. The company operates an articulated car transporter for internal deliveries from Acton Station and a Continental road services' department, also with articulated vehicles.

The Tribunal, in a written judgment, said this was not a case of new traffic, which ought, prima facie, to be catered for by existing transport facilities, if they were suitable. The traffic concerned was that of the appellant's existing customers and the need for further tractor capacity had arisen through the growth of the appellant's existing business, It did not appear to the Tribunal to be equitable that the appellants should be denied the ability to cope with the growth of their own business and be forced to hire a tractor from one of their competitors in ordcr to get their trailers moved,

Tags

Organisations: Transport Tribunal
Locations: London

comments powered by Disqus