AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

G.W.R. Disregards Status Quo

22nd February 1935
Page 62
Page 62, 22nd February 1935 — G.W.R. Disregards Status Quo
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?

Keywords : Business / Finance

Reasons for the Failure of the Appeal of Mr. C J. Randall

BEFORE hearing the appeal, on Tuesday last, of Mr. S. J. Norman, Plymouth, and others, against the granting of an A licence by the Western Licensing Authority to the Great 'Western Railway Co., Mr. Rowand Harker, • K.C., chairman, announced the decision of the Appeal Tribunal in the case of Mr. C. J. Randall, Horrichurch. This appeal was reported in our issue dated February 8, and it will be remembered that it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the substitution of a vehicle for a trailer was permissible under Section 10 4) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and that the Licensing Authority was bound to -grant a licence. The Tribunal was of the opinion that a trailer is not a specified vehicle within the meaning of Section 10 (2) of the Act, and Mr. Gleeson E. Robinson, the Metropolitan Licensing Authonty, had the right to exercise his discretion. The fact upon which Mr. Robinson based his decision was that the appellant really wanted authority to use a second vehicle, so that lie could dispense with the need for hiring, and not, as the appellant had at one time suggested, to undertake work which the trailer had been doing. There was ample evidence to justify that fact,

1344

and the Tribunal, after consideration of the evidence, had come to the same conclusion. The appeal was dismissed, no order being made as to costs. Opening Mr. Norman's case, Mr. G. Thasiger said that the applications had resulted in an increase, over the figure for the basic year, of 39.8 per cent. in the number of vehicles and 34.4 per cent, in tonnage for the G.W.R. in Devon and Cornwall. It was admitted by the applicant at the original hearing, said Mr. Thesiger, that in the Western Area the number of vehicles on the road was in excess of requirements. It was also admitted that, during the basic year, 10 per cent. of the company's vehicles were not in daily use. Mr. Harker asked whether it was not the recognized practice in the industry that a small percentage of vehicles should be available in cases of accident or overhaul, and he stated that evidence as to this practice had been given in previous appeals. Mr. Thesiger, in reply, said that only 90 per cent, of the G.W.R. vehicles were required to carry out the work, and he submitted that, in the case of a vehicle being out of coinmission for a lengthy period, provision should be made by means of a shortterm licence.

No real evidence of need at the bases

from which it was proposed to operate the vehicles had been given, said Mr. Thesiger, yet the applicant had succeeded in obtaining the maximum number of vehicles in each place. The " pool" argument was mentioned in the hearing of the application, but was not applied in this case, as the railway company allocated its vehicles to certain definite bases in the two counties. The objectors were members of the Devon and .Cornwall Division of the Road Haulage Association and they took the view that the number of vehicles was sufficient for all needs in 1933. Mr. Thesiger said that the Licensing Authority had acknowledged the assistance of the R.H.A. in maintaining the status quo in the Western Area. It was said that in the published application, the G.W.R. Co. stated that the vehicles were to be used at Exeter and Plymouth. At the hearing, however, the Licensing Authority was informed that it was desired to allocate the vehicles to a number of bases. The hearing was continued on Wednesday, when Mr. E. Gilbert Woodward replied on behalf of the railway company.


comments powered by Disqus