AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

THE RAT

23rd July 1965, Page 28
23rd July 1965
Page 28
Page 29
Page 28, 23rd July 1965 — THE RAT
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?

OR THE JOB a closer look, especially at

After the rates rumpus, Frank Burravoe takes After the rates rumpus, Frank Burravoe takes contract work

TiE dispute between the Prices and Incomes Board and the Road Haulage Association about rates and the ferment over tipper charges in the Mendips, the Forest of Dean, Yorkshire, Staffordshire and Scotland, prompt another look at the peculiar position of Licensing Authorities in this matter, particularly in relation to Contract A licences, those waifs of the goods vehicle licensing system.

it must be 10 or more years ago since LAs decided to form a sort of National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Contract A licence-holders. They decided that the poor innocents needed protection. They believed that the unfortunate little man who bought a vehicle, probably on hire purchase, and entered into a contract for its use so that he might become the proud possessor of a Contract A licence was at the mercy of economic factors he did not understand. He tied himself to a rate which could never pay. He omitted to get a guarantee of regular and substantial mileage. He overlooked the importance of maintenance and depreciation. As a result he soon found that he could not make a living when limited by licence to one single customer. So he broke the law. He began to ignore the licence conditions by carrying for other customers (especially with return loads), by overloading, by working excessive hours and by neglecting maintenance. In other words he was an infant who needed care and attention—a problem child.

To save victims from that unfortunate fate the NSPCCA was started. it was more a state of mind than a formal body registered under the Friendly Societies Act. Its programme was simple. Before granting a Contract A licence, any LA who subscribed to the Society's policy insisted upon the inclusion in the required contract of a clause which guaranteed to the vehicle owner—come rain, come shine—a minimum amount of earnings per month. By that means the licenceholder would be saved from the

temptation of breaking the rules;of misbehaving. He would be miraCulously transformed from a potential felon into a law-abiding citizen, fit to be enrolled into the profession of haulier.

Not all the LAs became members of

the Society. Some said they had no power to make such a stipulation. If Parliament had intended to impose minimum earnings, it would have said so. The licensing legislation contained no clause to that effect. A vehicle owner must be presumed to know what he was doing when he entered into a ,contract. If he made a bad bargain, then he-mutt suffer the consequences. If he broke the law, he mutt be punished. This was the opposite school of thought.

Curiously, nobody ever seems to have challenged the NSPCCA view. Whenever called upon by the LA to do so, applicants for licences have meekly, put a figure of minimum earnings in their contracts. Whether the figure chosen was realistic, either at the time of signing or later, or whether it saved the licensee from damnation is more than a moot point.

Some queer things have been known to be done under Contract A agreements. There have been cases where, soon after a licence has been granted, the agreement which led to the grant has been altered without notification to the LA (in the Western area, for example); ignored (as in the Scottish area); proved to be leaky by had weather qualifications (Northern area): and abandoned before the minimum period of 12 months has elapsed (in many areas).

Whether an T..A is entitled to insist on the inclusion of minimum ' earnings in Contract A agreement could easily be settled. An appeal to the Transport Tribunal against a refusal to grant such a licence would quickly bring a decision. But of course there are two preliminaries before that stage is reached. First, the applicant for the licence must decline to accede to the LA's dictum. Secondly_ the

LA must for that reason reject the application. Both are patently reluctant to do anything of the kind. LAs may .rattle their sabres, hut they stop short of the kill. Their motive in advertising, receiving objections and holding public inquiries in connection with Contract A applications seems to be to draw attention to suspected abuses rather than to fortify themselves for a refusal.

If a case ever does reach the Transport Tribunal, there cannot be much doubt about the %Vat' it will go.. .1n the appeal of Alexander Watt v BTC and others (Northern area, March 3, 1962) the Tribunal gave a broad hint of its attitude. Mr. Watt had two vehicles on Contract A licem.'t for a distillery, but when renewal. time came, the LA granted only one. "The reason for that ", the Tribunal commented. "and it seems an odd reason, was that the Authority declined to renew the licence on the ground that the contract produced did not . guarantee a sufficient minimum payment to the contractor. That ground seems highly debatable to say the least."

Even in ordinary Aand B-licence appeals, where there is no dispute about jurisdiction or discretion, the Tribunal shies off rates whenever it can. in BR Board and others v Mrs.E. M. Parker (Western area. March 28, 1963) the Tribunal's president said: "That we consider she (the respondent) was offering to do work on uneconomic terms is nothing to the point, for it is no part of our function to protect people from making improvident bargains." -Later (June 25, 1964), in C. E. Thornton v C. and W. Knight Ltd, and others (a West Midland area case concerning an RAF contract under a B lieerice), he fepeated what he had said in an earlier appeal (Grierson v Henning) that 0 prima facie it was in the public interest that the tenderer who was'preparcd to do the work at the lowest price was the one

who should be allowed to do it ". • There are grounds for believing that

the question of rates was one ingredient, if not the main motive, in the formulation of that clause which has become Section 178(1) (d) of the Road Traffic Act. 1960. That is the section which provides, infer alia, for the suspension, revocation or curtailment of an A or a B licence if a statement of intention by an applicant has not been fulfilled. Although so far it has been used for very different and much less important purposes, the section could undoubtedly be invoked in Cases where an applicant for a licence who successfully gets a customer to support his .application • by offering cut rates later puts up his charges or abandons the customer in favour of others prepared to pay more.

What is even more perturbing in present circumstances is the fact that if the declared intention to charge the cut rate was unqualified, a later change in the position, such as rising costs, Would be no defence to an allegation of nonfulfilment of the statement of intent. Incidentally, the very words used in Section 178(1) (d), 13 years old as they are, could easily be passed off, as the parents of the statement of intent under the incomes and prices policy of which the present Government has so recently been the midwife.

Although he deals only with road passenger fares on appeal, nobody knows better than the Minister of Transport what a hot potato road transport charges can be. All that the Minister is required to determine is that particular fares are " not unreasonable ". But his experience in the last three bus fares appeals—West Yorkshire Road Car Co. Ltd. (June 10, 1965), Eastern Counties Omnibus Co. Ltd. (May 31, 1965) and Ribble MotOr Services Ltd. (June II, I965)—must have been more a nightmare than ,a dream. .

Yet the fixing of passenger fares compared with the determination of goods rates is child's play. If anyone doubts that assertion, he might consult Mr. Aubrey Jones.


comments powered by Disqus