Situation Normal
Page 57
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FTER the fanfare comes the anti-climax. The Transport Tribunal, it was thought, in dealing with the Pike arid Roberts appeals, were about to attempt a new feat. They had the opportunity to give for the first time an authoritative ruling an what was normal in the A-licence holder's normal, user. -Instead of this happening, the Tribunal have issued their written judgment on the two cases, and so far as the interpretation of the law is concerned, nothing is changed, although there is all the difference for Pike and Roberts.
It is even Plainer than before' that the Tribunal are not to be budged without great difficulty from the position they have taken up. Whatever may be the precise meaning of "normal user," they will accept no excuse for a failure to observe it. They are adamant—or as they put it, " generally speaking it is desirable in the public interest."—that the failure should be visited with some penalty, which should be either the suspension or revocation of a licence, or the removal of a vehicle from it.
The British Transport Commission will take this ruling as an invitation to dispute the renewal of other A licences. There may well be a flood of appeals, and sooner or later the Tribunal may have to overcome their well-known reluctance to lay down a standard of normality. They found it easy to avoid this in the two recent cases. With a normal user limited to a radius of 25 miles, Pike had expressed the opinion before the Licensing Authority that only 25 per cent, of the work he had done had been within that radius. The activities of Roberts, for which there was "reliable evidence," were almost exclusively for one customer, and had taken the vehicle "outside and to a very large extent far outside" the 10-mile radius that was all the licence normally permitted.
Elasticity a Virtue
More carefully prepared bait than this will be needed to trap the Tribunal. There is much to be said also for leaving the definition of normal user reasonably elastic. Interpretations vary from one traffic area to another, and too rigid a decision from a higher authority may upset more hauliers than it pleases.
The A-licence holder urgently needs advice on the normal-user problem. For the most part, he had come to terms with it during the 20 years up to the passing of the Transport Act, 1953. It influenced his activities because he knew (or should have known) that it was there, but there were no cases where it had been responsible for the loss of a licence. The raising of the 25-mile limit imposed by the Socialists, and the consequent freedom of entry into the long-distance field, led many operators to ignore or forget what they had promised while the restriction was still in force. Understandably, they saw no sense in a general release from which‘they were somehow excluded. A succession of appeals that went against the haulier brought them to a realization of their peril.
These earlier appeals were decided on the basis of the 1933 Act. More recently, the Tribunal have been able to invoke section 9(4) of the 1953 Act, under which a penalty may be exacted for false statements made, or unduly optimistic intentions expressed, in order to get a licence. There is now no escape.
The Tribunal are not slow in giving advice to the licensing authorities, but seldom give it to the haulier, whoprobably needs it more. He can find no guidance in the Pike and Roberts judgements. He must go back to the
Knight case nearly two years ago, in which the Tribunal for one brief moment relaxed their judiCial. impassivity and told the luckless appellant, when it was too late, what he might have done to save his licence. To the Tribunal the correct course was "obvious." He should have applied for a new licence declaring his new purpose, at the same time offering to surrender the old licence if the new were granted.
This is like telling the bigamist that he should really have taken the problem home and made an amicable arrangement with his wife. There are certain practical objections. Knight, it will be remembered, had taken over a business and obtained a licence based an the work previously done. After the 25-Mile limit was lifted, the vehicles were used for work coinpletely different from what was stated on the declaration of normal user.
It was hardly likely that this abrupt change of activity would have been blessed with the issue of a new licence in accordance with the -procedure suggested by the Tribunal. There wis in practice no choice for Knight between keeping the business on the old lines and entering the long-distance field. The probability is that, had he known in advance what was going to happen on that fateful day in the West Midland traffic court, he would never have bought the business iii the first place.
Trouble Starts with Take-overs
Most normal-user cases—at any rate, those that are taken to appeal—seem to have their origin in a take-over. This is, no doubt, because when a business is offered for sale it is often not flourishing. The purchaser, if he is already a haulier, ,will usually want to assimilate the new business to his own. He is at once in a dilemma. He will find no difficulty in completing the sale by applying for a licence on the same terms as that held by the vendor. If subsequently he seeks to change the normal user and is unsuccessful, he may find himself with a useless business and vehicles on his hands, for which he has paid a large sum. On the other hand, if he seeks a completely new normal user at the time of the take-over, there will be formidable objections.
Rather than pursue further normal-user cases through the appeal machinery, the Road Haulage Association may find it more profitable to trace the cases back to their source, which will often be found in a take-over, and consider whether remedial action can be taken there. In the meantime, the lesson is clear for every A-licence holder, actual or prospective. Whether he wishes to acquire a new business, or whether he finds his activities veering away from his 'declaration of normal user, he should at once seek advice, from the local secretary of his Association if he is a member,
The advice may vary according to the traffic area and according to the extent of deviation from the previous activities. In some cases it may not be thought necessary to take action; in others a letter to the Licensing Authority may suffice.A series of such manoeuvres, rather like the warping of a sailing vessel, may in the aggregate represent a large change in a business, but so long as the Licensing Authority has been advised at each stage there can be no serious rebuke from him when the licence comes up for
renewal in the ordinary course of events. A substantial change may necessitate an earlier application for a new
licence. What exactly is meant by" substantial" -only the Tribunal can say, and at the moment they are keeping silent.