AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

recedent ea fails

21st October 1966
Page 46
Page 46, 21st October 1966 — recedent ea fails
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?

DECISION by the Northern area LA . to refuse an application by Charles lain (Contractors) Ltd. of Stockton, to sfer a C licence for a low-loader to a B Ice came before the Transport Tribunal week. Conditions were to transport ractors' plant and machinery to and from and repair shops within 80 miles.

he Tribunal dismissed the appeal. sons will be given in writing.

he appellants were represented by Mr. K. emann. There were five respondents: 2 and Elliott (Hauliers) Ltd., whom R. Yorke represented; Smith Bros. Ltd., Siddle C. Cooke, for whom Mr. T. H. 3pbell-Wardlaw appeared; and BACE Jcar) Ltd., who submitted a letter Of .esentation.

it the public inquiry Tennants told the LA its low-loader was occupied for 60 per : of its time and that the application sought )ccupy the 40 per cent of idle time.

)bjectors' schedules produced at the lic inquiry showing availability were llenged by Mr. Schiemann before the 'he THC and Elliott had produced ,T.dules which were misleading, he conled. More than half of the spare capacity on a Saturday or Sunday.

SACE operated one low-loader and its :.etion could only apply to a 10-mile radius Es base, as this was the limit of its area of ration.

'he evidence of Smith Bros. did indicate : there was one machine available each but Mr. Schiemann suggested that the -loader was not available where it was aired.

n making his decision known the LA had ed that there was insufficient evidence wed.

rhe application was amended at the ;inal hearing to confine the activity of applicant to the movement of plant and chinery to and from sites where its lowJer was working. During the hearing . Schiemann had cited cases which had n before the Tribunal dealing with this e of operation. The decisions of the bunal in these cases, Mr. Schiemann held, ported the appellant in the present case. 14r. Schiemann pointed out that whether lot the appeal was allowed the low-loader uld remain on the road under C licence; rould continue to run to the sites, whether not it had to operate uneconomically.

Ir. Yorke asked the Tribunal to look at question of return load and submitted t a return load must be along the same Ite as the outward journey if empty rung was to be eliminated. If the appeal were nved there would inevitably be abstraction traffic and this would make the operation the existing hauliers uneconomic. Mr. rke stated that this would amount to a 'lie disservice. He suggested that despite decisions in previous similar cases the bunal were always at liberty to change ir minds.

Tags

Organisations: Transport Tribunal
People: Schiemann

comments powered by Disqus