AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

More Lessons from Licensing

23rd January 1959, Page 158
23rd January 1959
Page 158
Page 159
Page 158, 23rd January 1959 — More Lessons from Licensing
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?

THE contributions on haulage licensing problems from G. Duncan Jewell in The Commercial Motor dated January 9, fail, in my opinion, to • clarify the position in respect of overweight vehicles and certain other matters.

On page 803 he says: The law is clear, no vehicle may be retained on a special A licence which is over the unladen weight specified." Who says so? What law? Perhaps• he wodld be good enough to quote his authority for his statement.

He adds: "The normal user applied for must relate to the work the vehicle has been doing and to the main districts served." If he will have another look at form GV1A, he will see that question 7 starts off—" Facilities which you propose to provide: ", not the work you have done in the past. In any event, one does not apply for a "normal user," one states it. Admittedly, it may be comparatively easy to justify a normal user in line with what has been done in the vast; but there is nothing to prevent an applicant declaring his intention of undertaking something wider in the future, although he may have to prove need for it.

He goes on to refer to a " restricted " A licence as compared with an "unrestricted " special A licence. Maybe, if the term "freedom " is only relative, so is the term "restricted "; but it is as well to remember that under the 1933 Act no conditions as to the goods to be carried or the area within which they are to be carried may be attached to an A licence. Notwithstanding a number of Appeal Tribunals decisions, I submit that case law can only interpret statute law. It cannot alter it.

His further statement that "the public A licence will be restricted to 75 per cent. of work within the normal user granted" could, I feel, do with rewording, because it reads as if a Licensing Authority could take offensive action against a licence holder who declared a 200-mile radius, if the said licence holder went beyond 150 miles.

Possibly what Mr. Jewell meant was that if an applicant declared those traffics and districts from which 75 per cent. of his income was derived, that would be his normal user. If that was meant, it would still leave 25 per cent of unspecified traffic—quite a margin.

"Lessons from Licensing" on page 813, Mr. Jewell says, "The Tribunal held that a deliberate departure from a haulier's declared statement of intention when a licence was granted was a sufficient ground for refusing to renew it. . . " I am sorry, but I did not read the decision of the Tribunal in that way. I understood that they were dealing, not with a deliberate (but possibly small) departure, but with a substantial or complete departure from declared normal user. As I have said above, apparently in agreement with the view held by Mr. Jewell, there is a 25 per cent. unspecified field allowing the licence holder appreciable scope to depart deliberately from his declared normal user within which he need fear no official sanctions.

Further, referring to assignments of special A licences, he says, "the applicant for an assignment states on his form that the actual vehicle is in his possession." The applicant does nothing of the sort and Mr. Jewell will find that form GV1A(SP) reads, "insert registration marks, unladen weights and types of motor vehicles to be included in the licence." This was for the very good and sufficient reason that if application were made for the nelk special A licence before taking delivery of the vehicle, the applicant has the right to put it to work immediately he takes delivery, before the licence is actually issued. If on the B20 other hand he takes delivery first and then applies for the licence, he must stand the vehicle up until the licence is actually in his possession (1953 Act, First Schedule). There is a place on the form for the insertion of the proposed date of delivery.

If applicants prefer to get themselves into difficulties by their unaided efforts, make foolish declarations of normal user that anyone familiar with licensing knows will create difficulties for them, and give still more foolish undertakings to restrict their own activities, that is their own affair. If, however, there is one statement in Mr. Jewell's contribution with which I can whole-heartedly agree, it is where he refers 'to the advantages of applications being handled by someone familiar with licensing.

Cambridge. G. W. IawiN, Secretary, Eastern Area, Road Haulage Association.

[I must first thank Mr. Irwin for drawing attention to the fact that I did not make it clear in my opening paragraph that

was referring to assignments of special-A vehicles. It is true that, normally, once a vehicle has been specified on a licence the holder is legally entitled to operate it even though it may have increased in weight since the licence was granted. However, Section 6, Part 1, of the Transport Act, 1953, states that no variation of a special A licence shall be made except a variation consisting only of the removal of a specified vehicle from the licence, or of the specification in the licence in substitution for a specified vehicle or a vehicle of the same or less weight unladen.

The Northern Licensing Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, has interpreted the terms of Section 9 (4) of the Act, as giving grounds for revoking or suspending a licence when a false statement has been made on the application form for a special A licence as to the unladen weight of a vehicle, and it has been established that the vehicle is, in fact, heavier. I was referring to these facts alone and I wish to make it clear that I am offering practical advice and not laying down the strict letter of the law, on which, in my original article (The Commercial Motor, November 28, page 628) I stated that legal opinion should be sought,

No haulier should be given the impression that merely because notification of an increase in weight during the currency of a licence is not specifically demanded, any advantage gained by way of increased carrying capacity, or change of type, cannot be penalized.

The mere substitution of an oil engine for a petrol unit, minor changes not affecting the carrying capacity, or ability to compete with other operators, would not be regarded as unreasonable, but large increases in weight involving a change of type, or adding to the payload, may well be taken into consideration when a public A licence is applied for, and it is a question of proving need.

With regard to normal user, Mr. Irwin is quite right when he says, "there is nothing to prevent an applicant declaring his intention of undertaking something wider in the future, although he may have to prove need for it." Obviously, even a newcomer can obtain an A licence with any normal user if he can prove need for it. The paragraph referred to was directed towards the difficulty of proving. "genera' goods, Great Britain," and the importance of giving the Licensing Authority a guide as to what the vehicle has been doing. The necessity to state future intention is, I should have thought, obvious.

The text in the next paragraph makes it plain that the terms " unrestricted " and restricted," refer solely to the change from a licence where normal user need not be stated. to one where the major operations must be defined within certain limits. In previous articles I have made it clear that no conditions may be attached to an A licence so far as the law is concerned, but there is a danger that the distinction, ' between a B-licence condition and A-licence normal user or statement of intention, will become theoretical.

I do not agree that the reference to 75 per cent. is ambiguous, but perhaps it should be added that there is no set figure and the percentage defined as being .outside normal user is usually interpreted according to the circumstances of the case.

Referring to my article, "Lessons from Licensing," on page 813, I would suggest that no one who read it as a whole could be misled on the subject of a statement of intention. The sub-heading advises, " If the nature of a haulage business changes substantially, tell the Licensing Authority . ." and the next sentence to Mr. Irwin's quotation reads, "a major change during the currency of a licence should be declared, and a new licence applied for, adducing affirmative evidence UrF prove need."

On the question of assignments, the sentence referred to should have read,'the applicant for an assignment states on his form that the actual vehicle will be in his possession," for, as Mr. Irwin is aware, question 9 asks for• the proposed delivery date of the vehicle or vehicles, and on and after the date inserted by the applicant, unless otherwise informed, the Licensing Authority is entitled to assume that this is the case.

With regard to the right of an applicant to run a vehicle for hire or reward before the licence is actually issued, although no action has been taken against operators who have done so, there is considerable difference of opinion as to whether Section 8, of Part 1 of the First Schedule to the Act, gives an assignee the same right .as that enjoyed by the original purchaser of a transport unit to operate without a licence. In the cases which I was discussing in my article the hauliers were operating illegally because they had filled in application forms in blank, and left it to the dealer concerned to make the application to the Licensing. Authority, which was delayed for some time, and they were, in fact, operating before the applications were ,made.—G. DUNCAN JEWELL.]

Demountable Bodies Used in 1929

WRITING in your issue dated January 16, P. A. C. " Brockington asks; "Why not use stillages as bodies? " If he had employed the words " demountable bodies" I would add that this was achieved successfully as far back as 1929. In that year over 100 4-ton vehicles were especially built and fitted with demountable bodies by one of the former railway companies. The equipment included

apparatus for the removal and replacement of the bodies, and loading banks to deal with them. This was done most effectively and rapidly. It took a total of two minutes to remove a loaded body or stillage and replace it with another, either empty or loaded, for the next trip out.

The problems of centring the vehicle and body, and lifting and securing the latter were successfully solved. Incidentally, the maintenance of these vehicles was much simplified, because of it being possible to remove the body while making an examination or carrying out repairs.

It was, however, just about this time that the first articulated vehicles appeared on the road, and the extra manceuvrability and convenience of this type seemed to kill off the " demountables."

The apparatus employed for removing the bodies is, I believe, still covered by a patent, and in view of Mr. Brockington's interesting article, I thought that he might like to know these points.

A. W. LORT-WILLIAMS, London, W.2. District Road Motor Engineer, British Railways (Western Region).

Valve to Improve "Artie." Braking

WE are very interested in your leading article on matched " " ar t ic s." in your issue dated January 2, particularly in respect of brakes on such vehicles.

We quite agree that a perfect braking system for articulated vehicle's can be evolved and we believe the problem can be solved if our Dual Control Valve is used to control the brakes on the articulated operation.

Our valve is so designed that, after it is fixed to the tractor and coupled-up, it can be adjusted to cut in at any predetermined moment. We have found from experience that it is better to bring• the trailer brakes into operation a fraction of a second ahead of those on the tractor—this when the pedal only is used. With the hand operation only the trailer brakes operate and it has been found over a period of years by several world-famous users that this system is ideal.

If we can be of any assistance to you or any of your readers we shall be most pleased.

M. E. JOHNSON, Director,

Wembley, Middx. Feeny and Johnson, Ltd.


comments powered by Disqus