Five More Appeals Decided
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TWO reserved decisions were given and two other cases were heard and decided by the Transport Tribunal in London last week. An appeal against the grant of a B licence was upheld.
In two cases, the appellants had originally applied for four vehicles but had been granted only one, in one instance under a B licence and in the other under an A licence. The appeal concerning the B licence was dismissed. A cross-appeal by the British Transport Commission against the conditions attached to the licence was upheld and the conditions were tightened. The appeal affecting the A licence was allowed to the extent of granting two vehicles instead of one.
An appeal against the grant of an A licence was dismissed.
Extra Vehicle Allowed
A LTHOUGH several customers had r-k given evidence of future need, this was completely disregarded by the North Western Deputy Licensing Authority when Corfields Transport (1955), Ltd., sought additions to their A licence. He granted only one out of four vehicles applied for, solely on the existing position, said Mr. E. A. Whitehead, when Corfields appealed to the Tribunal.
He said the case had been put forward on the basis of expected business, but the Authority failed to give sufficient weight to the witnesses' statements. Corfields required one additional vehicle to meet the needs of their own, brickworks, and three to cater for the increased requirements of existing customers. A number of customers had said they expected an increase in traffic.
For the respondents, the British Transport Commission, Mr. J. Edward Jones submitted that a feature of the case was the lack of tangible evidence.
Mr. Hubert Hull, president, said Corfields had made out a case. The requirements of their customers would be met by allowing the addition of one more vehicle.
Furniture Makers Lose Their B Licence
FOUR Devonshire hauliers have succeeded in their appeal against the grant of a B licence to a furnituremanufacturing concern. The licence was granted to the Resteasy (Teignmouth) Manufacturing Co., Ltd., by the Western Licensing Authority, on condition that they surrendered their current C licence (The Commercial Motor, November 29).
His decision was challenged by Nicks Co., Ltd., Teignmouth; F. J. Reeves and Co. (Transport), Ltd., Totnes; Bartlett Bros. (Hauliers), Ltd., Teignmouth; and H. D. Gourd and Son, Ltd., Bishopsteignton.
Allowing the appeal in a reserved decision last week, Mr. Hubert Bull said the licence conditions permitted Resteasy to carry furniture and household effects within 25 miles of Teignmouth, provided the goods were being replaced by Resteasy products. But the work must not amount to complete household removals. They were also permitted to carry similar traffic from auction sales within 25 miles to Devon and Cornwall. in the course of their business. Mr. Hull pointed out that the grant was much more limited than the one asked for, yet Resteasy had not appealed. They had held the licence for six months, and if it were true that there was sufficient demand for their services, they would be in a better position to renew their application.
Stricter Conditions on Licence
A N inn licensee, who was granted one B-licence vehicle by the Eastern Licensing Authority, instead of the four he had sought, failed in his appeal (The Commercial Motor, December 6). The Tribunal also decided that the conditions of his new B licence should be tighter.
Mr. J. C. Poole, acting president of the Tribunal, said in a reserved decision that Mr. J. W. Hurst. Emneth, near Wisbech, had 84 acres of land, besides being a licensee. Originally he had three vehicles on C licence, two of which were hired out to a haulier. The haulier went into liquidation last year, but later Mr. Hurst added another vehicle to his fleet. Then he applied to put them on B licence.
The Authority had allowed one vehicle for carrying agricultural produce and requisites within 30 miles of Emneth, and fruit and vegetables collected within 30 miles for delivery to markets and factories within 300 miles.
Mr. Poole said that the British Transport Commission, who had put in a cross appeal that no vehicle at all should have been granted, claimed that there had been flagrant breaches of the conditions of the existing C licences. Their appeal would be allowed to the extent of varying the conditions granted.
Low-loader Appeal by B.T.C. Dismissed
THE grant of two low-loaders on A licence to C. and I. (Agencies), Ltd., Bristol. was upheld by the Tribunal. They dismissed an appeal by the British Transport Commission.
For the B.T.C., Mr. D. L. McDonnell said C. and J. were one of a group of three companies. The other two were Stone and Co. (Bristol) Transport, and Western Contractors' Services, Ltd. The low-loaders were originally on a B licence granted to Stone's, which allowed them to carry for Western Contractors' Services, but it was now sought to transfer them to the third company.
C. and J. wanted them to go on to A licence so that they could work mainly
for their fellow companies, carry for subcontractors working on Stone sites, and haul return loads. But there was no evidence that the outsiders' work was not being done satisfactorily at the moment.
The Western Licensing Authority should have tried to find out what the real transport requirements were, and then filled no more than those requirements. For C. and J., Mr. J. R. SamuelGibbon submitted that the Authority's decision was inevitable and unassailable. Every objector had conceded that the figures of earnings showed substantially full employment for the two vehicles.
There had also been evidence that work for Western Contractors' Services was likely to continue increasing.
Rejecting the appeal, Mr. Hubert Hull said it had been shown that the services of both vehicles would be required to cater for all the people who wanted to employ C. and J. It would also be convenient for the associated companies to have a haulier at their immediate disposal. There was no evidence to show that there were enough other facilities to do the work, let alone do it as conveniently as C. and J.