1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144 
Tribunal rejects Contract A switches
Page 44
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Transport Tribunal has dismissed two appeals against decisions of the North Western deputy LA. The reasons were almost identical: both appellants had lucrative Contract A work and sought to increase earnings by switching to A licence.
G. Sweeney (Transport) Ltd., of Rochdale, contended that it had proved need for outward traffic through the Contract A but that it could only load to 50 or 60 per cent capacity on return loads. Sweeney also said that the contract was profitable.
The respondent, BRS, said that it was not interested in the outward traffic but held that the ability of the appellant to back load its spare capacity would cause abstraction of traffic.
The second appeal dismissed by the Tribunal was that of A.M. Bell (Transport) Ltd., of Macclesfield.
The appellant had been refused an A licence for six vehicles. The company was prepared to surrender a Contract A and B licence for four vehicles.
The Tribunal held that there had been no proof of need at the public inquiry and that the only reason for the application was to increase earnings.