Significant Licensing Cases
Page 62
Page 63
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Appeal Decisions to Unify Policy?
THE reaffirmation by the Transport Tribunal, in their decisions on the Pike and Roberts appeals, that departures from declared normal user should'be penalized may promote a more uniform method among Licensing Authorities dealing with this type of case.
One point which is still obscure is what happens to the haulier who finds his customer's business is changing. Presumably he should inform the Licensing Authority immediately the trend becomes clear and, if necessary, apply for a revision of normal user.
While there is some justification for the Road Haulage Association's contention that an A licence no longer has the flexibility that was intended when the 1933 Act came into operation, it should not be overlooked that however normal user is described or enforced, there is still latitude for the holder to carry anywhere, within limits. These have been put as high as 40 per cent, of all work, if the journeys arc not regular.
Pitfall for Hauliers
Because of the widespread misunderstanding on this subject many hauliers have been led into declaring a great deal of their work which could never be classed as "normal." As a result, there are items in many declarations which are not regular, and could well lead to suggestions of change by objectors if they do not appear in figures presented later as evidence for variations or renewals.
Hauliers, particularly small operators, have also played into the hands of British Railways, the High Priests of Normal User, by disclosing their hands at meetings of road and rail negotiating committees, and agreeing to alterations in statements of intention in return for the withdrawal of objections.
The British Transport Commission continue to play cat and mouse in this game, pressing home their objections only when the result is unlikely to have repercussions. At Liverpool, in October, when a complete change of normal user and an alteration of vehicles from tippers to flats by the Larkfield Motor Co., Ltd., Liverpool (a subsidiary of Robertson Buckley and Co., Ltd.), was before Mr. F. Williamson, North Western Licensing Authority, Mr. A. W. flame, for the B.T.C., said they had merely sought to establish that four tippers had become flats, and would leave the matter in the Authority's discretion. Mr. Williamson, in view of a change in share-holdings, granted a licence without penalty.
an
Where Should the Base Be?
WHETHER a vehicle's base must be VY in the area from which its work emanates is another banner the B.T.C. have been carrying into battle. Their contention is that the phraseology of the 1933 Act and the regulations indicate that a " base " gives the Licensing Authority information as to what facilities it is intended to provide from there in the future, and affords potential objectors an opportunity of knowing what additional vehicles they will meet.
In the Bradbury appeal, in which the B.T.C. submitted that a base at Leek, used as an' office and a servicing place for a vehicle carrying outwards from Manchester, was not appropriate, and that potential objectors in Manchester would know nothing of the application because it was lodged in the West Midlands. the Tribunal upheld the grant and proposed to give their reasons later.
A similar question arose, also in the West Midlands, concerning Oswald Transport, Ltd. They sought a base at Talke for vehicles the main traffic of which was from North and South Wale The Licensing Authority reserved decisiol The case put forward from the otla point of view is that a haulier's base nee not be in the actual area from whic the outward traffic is moved, and tht vehicles need not start and return fror there so long as they are controlled fro' the base. It appears that the Tribum have some sympathy with this view.
Alarm Over Loophole
QPERATORS of special-type vehicle are becoming alarmed over th loophole in the law which allows th substitution of heavier semi-trailer without seeking permission from th Licensing Authority or having to prov need.
Although an articulated tractor am semi-trailer count as one vehicle for th purposes of Excise tax, they are showi as separate vehicles on an A or B licence and there is no obligation to notif; changes of semi-trailer weight.
Although a number of recent cases ha been opposed by the established heavy and indivisible-load carriers, there seem nothing to prevent a haulier alterim special-A licensed semi-trailers into low loaders, and the only control which tin Licensing • Authorities can at presen exercise is over the size of the tractor.
Change in Business At Lincoln in October, B.R.S. (Pick fords), Ltd., objecting to an applicatior by Messrs. A. Suthrell, Lincoln, for t public-A licence for a heavy articulate( unit previously operated under special-.1 licence, submitted that the substitutior of a semi-trailer of more than 7 tom unladen for one originally of 2 tore 13 cwt. represented a complete change in the nature of the business.
The applicants pointed out that they had been notified by the Licensing Authority that they were entitled te operate any type of semi-trailer under a special-A licence. The unit had been in service since September, 1957, and its usc over such a period was ample justification for the grant of an A licence.
This application was granted by the East Midland Licensing Authority and. later in the month, when an application by Freeman, Volkers, and Stuart, Ltd., was heard at Stockton on Tees, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, Northern Licensing Authority, said there was nothing illegal about such substitutions or alterations.
Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, objecting for Siddle C. Cook, Ltd., Messrs. Sunter Bros. and A. Stevens and Co. (Haulage), Ltd., had submitted that the applicants were seeking a hybrid vehicle which could operate with alternate semi-trailers for normal or special work. The evidence had not established sufficient need to justify the grant of a normal user allowing special-type work. and the licence should be restricted to a conventional vehicle. This application stands adjourned for irther evidence, but there appears to be o way in which objectors can prevent perators of special-A vehicles, with ;mi-trailers which have been altered to table them to carry special loads, btaining substantive licences to carry on is work provided it has been a sub:antial part of the operation by the chides.
Mr. Siddle C. Cook told me that he !gards this case as of paramount nportance. Those operators who have 3ent a great deal of money on vehicles nd equipment, and have specialized in se movement of heavy and indivisible tads, take a ,serious view of easy entry
to this field.
Vhen Customers Vant Low Rates
THE successful appeal by the B.T.C. against the grant of an A licence to Mr. H. 0. Thompson, New Brighton, in place of a B licence, hardly conforms to current practice when customers support licence changes. During the hearing, Sir Hubert Hull, 'resident of the Transport Tribunal, said hat to grant an A licence to a man who aid he was not doing too well with a estricted licence but would do better if le could carry return loads, would be o blow a large hole in the licensing ystem. B, contract-A, and C-hiring licences, lave been converted to A on the ground hat unless return loads could be carried, low enough rate to suit the customer vas not an economic possibility. The fribunal have said that if a customer ;omes forward and supports such an ipplication, it should be given favourable ;onsideration.
A customer's right to pick his haulier ihould not extend to a right to decide yhat sort of licence he should be Irranted. The very object of control, o avoid a surplus of transport, may be gnored. Many hauliers are of the pinion that already there is a surplus of
-licensed transport because of the many witches of licence which have been ranted.
In practice, the result is that instead f considering whether there is a need or additional A-licensed vehicles, the ue,stion is whether the customer wants is goods carried by a particular haulier, ven if there are other A-licensed vehicles vailable.
ttention Turned to eturn Loads
I N addition to their efforts to tie
hauliers down to carrying outward traffic from the area in which their vehicles are based, the legal gentlemen of the Commission have turned their attention to return loads.
On a number of occasions when -licence applications have been opposed, t has been suggested that a more approriate licence would be a B, because therwise there would be no control over eturn loads. These would affect B.T.C. nits in other areas.
This line of reasoning has had little success, and in view of the Transport Tribunal's repeated declarations that return loads need not be considered in assessing need, seems to have no future.
There does, however, seem every reason to believe that it would pay many independents to peruse copies of Applications and Decisions from the areas adjacent to their own, for it is obvious to any regular attender at inquiries that many grants could affect hauliers elsewhere. They will probably know nothing about them until it is too late.