Authority Refused to Hear Case
Page 61
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
T"South Eastern Licensing Authority's refusal to hear an application by a coach operator is being contested by the Passenger Vehicle Operators A.ssociation. They are supporting Mr. W. F. Carter, of Maidenhead, who last year was granted a variation of his licence to extend his
Maidenhead Bournemouth express service to Weymouth.
Later, Mr. Carter lodged his normal " renewal " application to continue the service from Maidenhead to Weymouth: This was taken out of the published list because the Minister of Transport had not given his decision on an appeal by the railways against the earlier grant. Last March the Minister announced that the appeal would be allowed.
The Licensing Authority then asked for the return of the old licence, so that it could be amended by the deletion of Weymouth. Counsel acting for the member advised against the return of the licence, as it had expired on February 29 and no useful purpose would be served in amending an expired licence.
Eventually the renewal application was listed and Mr. Carter was told that he must attend the hearing on May 17. When the case came up the Licensing Authority refused to hear it on the ground that no licence existed.
Mr. M, A. B. King Hamilton, for Mr. Carter, said that the Licensing Authority's refusal to hear the case, particularly in view of the specific request Co the applicant to attend, might result in an application for a mandamus.
Later, Mr. King Hamilton advised Mr. Carter to appeal under Section 81 (1) (a) of the 1930 Act on the ground that he was "aggrieved by the failure of the Commissioners to grant the licence." Counsel also advised the operator to continue to run to Weymouth in accordance with the original licence.
P.V.O.A. have endorsed this advice and assured Mr. Carter of their support.
Other cases being supported by the Association involve the principle of refusing applications by small existing operators in favour of a large company. P.V.O.A. successfully disputed the South Eastern Licensing Authority's ruling that the small operators had no right of appeal on their substantive application because they had worked under short-term licences. The contention of P.V.O.A. that the operators could continue to work the services pending decision on appeal was also upheld.