A Met. Contract Licence in the Limelight
Page 51
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
QECTION 174(2) of the 1960 Road Traffic Act—which provides for Contract A I:cences—came under the microscope recently as the result of a representation that the kind of operation being undertaken by the applicant, Adjuvil Ltd. of London, WI, required a II licence.
As exclusively reported in The Commercial Motor of April 9, Shepperton Studios Ltd. (the contract customer) rents studio space to film companies, part of the arrangements being that the film companies use the transport provided by she studios for the carriage of props and so on. • Mr. • A. W. Bailie, for Farmcraft Ltd.. who made the representation, ascertained from the applicant's witnesses that each of the renters of the studios--and several studios could be • working at the same time-was a separate entity in itself, and during cross-examination it had been agreed that the previous contract for five years had been, in fact, a succession t private hires to clients who were charged
separately for the transport. Mr. Balne made the point that if the hirer was at all engaged in arranging for transport, he could not properly be the hiring party ro a Contract A arrangement.
In his written decision (reported last week) Mr. Muir stated that he did not go "all the, way" with Mr, Balne. " The test must, I think, be whether the arranging for the carrying of goods is a significant part of the business of the hiring party ", the Licensing Authority added.
Mr, Muir said that hitherto he had been of the opinion, with reference to Section 174(2), that Shepperton Studios were not engaged in a business of atranging for the carriage of goods, but from what he had been told at the public inquiry he was now satisfied that it was a significant part of the business. Therefore. Adjuvil Ltd, could not properly he granted a Contact A licence to carry exclusively for Shepperton Studios, The arrangements, however, had been LICENSING CASEBOOK-contd made in all good faith. and Mr. Muir has indicated that Adjuvil should apply for a B licence and, at the same time, apply for a short-term B licence-which he would grant-to carry out the company's commitments until the full-term B licence was determined.
Whilst it can he argued that this was purely a matter of licensing technicality, it does once again bring into the limelight the whole question of whether or 1318 not Contract A licence applications should be published.
How Fartncraft knew that a renewal application had been lodged is not clear -presumably they had got in touch with the Licensing Authority's office to ascertain the fact. One wonders how many other Contract A licences are in operation in this and other traffic areas that more appropriately should be A, B or even C licences.
TRIBUNAL DECISION ON BERTRAM THE Transport Tribunal, at a recent
hearing in Edinburgh, confirmed the grant of a new A licence for four vehicles to Gavin Bertram, of Mid Calder, but in the case of two B-licence grants, which were in dispute, they remitted to the Scottish Licensing Authority for re-hearing.