AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Licence Irregularities by Scottish Omnibuses

20th March 1959, Page 50
20th March 1959
Page 50
Page 50, 20th March 1959 — Licence Irregularities by Scottish Omnibuses
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?

'THE extreme seriousness of licensing irregularities was emphasized by 'THE C. I. Macdonald, Metropolitan Deputy Traffic Commissioner, last week, when Scottish Omnibuses, Ltd., and the Western S.M.T. Co., Ltd., applied for five picking-up points in the area. It was stated that for some 30 years the two companies, operating to London from Edinburgh and Glasgow, respectively, had used stops on the Great North Road outside the conditions of their licence.

It was also revealed that on a recent isolated occasion, Western S.M.T. had failed to run an express service from London, preferring to send the half-dozen passengers who had booked to their destination by train. One of the picking-up points applied for, at Baldock, was granted: the remaining four are subject to a deferred decision.

The only objectors to the application were Buckmaster Garages, Ltd., Leighton Buzzard, who recently applied unsuccessfully for an express service from Aylesbury to Glasgow. The application opened with a submission by Mr. J. B. T. Louden, for Scottish Omnibuses, that Buckmaster were not entitled to object because they did not provide a service on or near the route in question.

Mr. Macdonaldelicited that the company not only ran local services in the Luton and Bedford districts, regarded as in the Baldock catchment area, but also to the east coast, across the line of route. He held that their objection came within the ambit of Section 72 (3). Objections by London Transport had been withdrawn following discussions with the Scottish companies, who had agreed to delete. Potters Bar and Knebworth from their application.

Mr. R. M. Palmer, special duties officer, Scottish Omnibuses, said that both companies sought picking-up points at Barnet, Hatfield, Welwyn Garden City, Stevenage and Baldock.

Honest Mistake

On November 18-19, during the hearing of the Buckmaster application at Luton, it had been made apparent that for some 30 years, these picking-up points had been used irregularly but in good faith. Their existence was indicated in time-tables and brochures, and correspondence put into court showed their value to the public.

With the exception of Baldock, which was regarded as an official stop, dispensations in respect of the other points had been obtained for pre-booked passengers. Other licensed stops were at Golders Green and North Finchley.

Answering questions by Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Palmer said that lack of written records made it impossible to say definitely when their practice of using irregular stops began. Pointing out the seriousness of the irregularities, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner said that he did not doubt that, if a competitor had transgressed in some similar manner, the Scottish companies would have been among the objectors. He then asked in what other ways the terms of the licences had been contravened.

Mr. Palmer replied that it had been r 12 brought to his notice that on an isolated recent occasion, Western S.M.T. had failed to run an express service. When it had appeared that only one passenger had booked, an inspector at the London terminal had offered him a railway voucher for Glasgow and the coach was cancelled. Later, five other passengers for the same service were also given rail

tickets, athough there was no question of force majertre, such as impossible driving conditions.

Turning to the application in respect of Stevenage, Mr. Macdonald said thatin the Buckmaster case, the Scottish operators objected that there was no difficulty for passengers from as far away as Aylesbury, getting across country to join their service at Baldock, or even in returning to the London terminal. What was the significance of the Stevenage application?

Mr. Palmer replied that it was merely a matter of passenger convenience, because the town was on the line of route.

Mr. Macdonald said that, within the terms of Section 72, it was his duty to consider not only the convenience of the public, but also the case for other providers of transport in the area. Irregular operation over many years was not in itself an argument in support of the application, although it might well be that there were better grounds today for picking-up at such places as Stevenage ,and Hatfield than there were in the past. He granted the application in respect of Baldock and reserved decision on the other points.


comments powered by Disqus