When to Use Tonnage Formulae
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SEVERAL interesting points were raised during the hearing of an application before the North-Western Deputy Licensing Authority, at Liverpool, last Friday. Messrs. A. Atkins and Sons, 14, Langdale Street, Bootle, applied for a variation of their A licences to allow them to acquire four vehicles of 11 tons unladen weight„
For the applicants, Mr. Ian Macaulay said that they Were an old-established firm, carrying both locally and over long distances. They had not built up their business originally by hiring, but, whereas formerly they hired to the extent of 6 per cent., they now had to hire to the extent of 24 per cent.
Diffi
culties with regard to hiring had been made more acute by the tendency to restrict B licences and many hauliers formerly employed in this Way were, as a result, not now available.
Working on the Beasley formula, the value per ton of unladen weight had risen from £272 in 1932-33 to £306 in 1935-36. Working on the 1935-36 turnover of £8,214 and the basic-year value per ton of unladen weight of £272,. by the Hawker-Beasley formuln they should be entitled to 30,2 tons, which appeared to justify an increase of 7-74 ;tons.
Mr. G. H. P. l3eames, for the L.M.S. Railway Co., contended that the Appeal Tribunal never intended the Hawker or Beasley forinula to be used except as supplementary to the Ridgewell ruling, and applicants must first fulfil the Ridgewell onus. He asked the Authority not to .pay any. .regard to:the formula " until lie Was 'Satisfied that the pool of transport was 'insufficient.A. gradual --transformation .ter' long distance work Was taking place and Mr. Beames con7,. tended that the .platforfin lorries sought
were particularly suitable for that class of work.
Two of these vehicles should, in his opinion, be on contract licences; otherwise they, should be refused. Mr. Macaulay pointed to the fact that the firm's hiring had increased beyond normal limits He agreed that the Hawker and Beasley formulm should be applied after satisfying the Ridgewell onus, but in doing so one must consider that the applicants wei-e established hauliers who were increasing their business by means which the Tribunal had decided were quite in order.
Counsel pointed out that in the Draper appeal at Liverpool, the Tribunal had ruled against Mr. Beanies on the point that Mr. Draper was a quasinewcomer, because he had changed his type of haulage since the basic .year. It had not been shown that Messrs. Atkins had taken away their faeilities for local work and thus altered the transport pool.
Dealing wIth the question of contract licences, it WbS not sufficient to work on an average in this particular case, owing to the fluctuating nature of the demand and the practical difficulties. To force a contract licence on an applicant would lead to that unsatisfactory state of affairs which the Act was designed to abolish.
If the Authority were -to issue contract licences without regard to the circumstances, the haulier would be entirely. in the hands of his employer and would really be in the same iniquitous position as the small haulier was in dealing with the AiSreputable -cla.Ss of clearing-house, when he knew that he must_ agree to its rates or go out Of business 'altogether.
Decision was reServed.'