The Northern 'Vigilantes' can't the R.H.A. help?
Page 36
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Northern Licensing Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, went to great pains last week at Newcastle upon Tyne to define the position of objectors to applications for extra vehicles or additional carrying capacity.
This is what he said. "Hauliers are entitled under the Statute to make objections for applications for new tonnage. It is part of their statutory right and part of the means by which a balance of licensed haulage is available for hire or reward. Existing hauliers are entitled to object and they are entitled to say, in my view: ` I have had an increase in the work of my regular customers. I am an existing haulier and I am the one who is entitled to additional tonnage, not this new
corner'. He can say also that he is entitled to this new tonnage and not this other haulier who has not clone the work before, or who is offering a lower rate."
Mr. Hanlon continued by drawing a comparison between the methods of licensing public service vehicle operators and goods vehicle licensing. "It has been done by P.S.V. operators for the last 33 years," he said. "They say, • I am the existing operator, and if there is additional traffic, then I am entitled to object '."
Why Such Trouble?
Why, one may ask, has Mr. Hanlon gone to so much trouble to explain the rights of objectors in such detail? The answer is simple enough. There is a group of hauliers in his area, who, apparently, have banded themselves together and formed themselves into a Sort of "watch committee ", whote object is to oppose, dare I say, "everything, everywhere " in the Northern Area, (They do not confine their activities solely to the Northern Area. Several of them, I discovered when I was in Manchester recently, had objected to an application lodged in the North Western Area, though they did not attend the court.) These operators are known as the " Vigilantes ". Although they are mostly members of the Road Haulage Association they prefer to meet among themselves—and they do this every Monday night—to discuss applications appearing in 'As and Ds" for additional vehicles. As one of them told me recently: "We meet to thrash things out, and everybody is welcome to come along ".
One applicant who appeared before Mr. Hanlon recently, felt the might of the group in full, though I am not suggesting for one instant that there was anything illegal in their actions.
Attempt to Resuscitate
As reported in this journal last week, Siddle C. Cook Ltd., a company well known for its long distance heavy haulage activities in connection with the steel industry, applied to the Northern Licensing Authority for a B licence in respect of four tippers to carry goods for the Consett Iron Company "as required ", and certain other goods over a limited radius. The application, as explained by Mr. T. H. Campbell Warcflaw for Cook, was, in effect, an attempt to resuscitate a four-vehicle B licence which had been surrendered voluntarily (though, to be fair, after certain difficulties had been experienced by Cook in connection with the licence) in 1958.
Now, the law does not provide for the resuscitation of licences, and, there being no verbal customer evidence, a submission by the opposition of "no case to answer" was upheld and the application refused It was unfortunate that nc customer evidence was called because hac the onus been passed to the objector: there might have been some interestini evidence of vehicle availability and idlc capacity, if the next application in Mr Hanlon's list was anything to go by.
Usually Unopposed
The following application was, in fact for a new B licence in continuation a an existing B licence, without modifica tion. In the ordinary course of events such renewals are unopposed and an usually granted in chambers, but S:ddli C. Cook Ltd. objected and the matte had to come to court.
The applicant was an H. V. Maycock of Lanchester—one of the leadirn figures behind the group—who, oi his own admission in the witness box has objected to anyone who has applied for extra vehicles, and will continue to do so. Asked to produce figures of opera tions, etc., he showed that his 12 vehicle were earning an average of £3,000 apiec per annum—excellent earnings, one ma think, in an area that is currently goin through a bad period of unemploymer and recession. Mr. Maycock als admitted that he had recently increase, his carrying capacity by about 22 tom He made a surprising statement in th witness box. If he had realized that hi vehicles were so fully occupied he woul, have applied for an additional vehicle Cards on Table
Of course, the application for th " renewal " was granted, but the resu of Mr. Cook's abortive objection is du one at least of the group has ha to put his cards on the public table am surely, his next objection under th "everything, everywhere" formula will be that much less effective. Now, presumably, Mr. Cook will try to force the other regular objectors to show their cards. But this is a drawn out and costly affair.
As I mentioned earlier, most, if not all, of these regular objectors are members of the R.H.A. A good proportion of the applicants in the area are members, too. For this very reason the R.H.A. washes its hands of both parties and keeps out of the fight, so to speak.
It seems to me, however, that this objecting on a " regular " basis is not within the spirit of the Act. Cannot the local R.H.A. bring the matter into perspective with a view to preventing among hauliers and saving them the cost and time involved in going to court.