1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216 
"Onus on Objectors Being Forgotten"
Page 150
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE onus imposed on objectors to satisfy the Licensing Authority that they have facilities to do the work, is being forgotten in many Traffic Areas. If objectors failed to call evidence and an applicant for additional vehicles proved his fleet was fully occupied, he should not be treated as a newcomer to the work in question.
This submission, by Mr. J. A. Dunkerley, for A. C. Jameson (Transport), Ltd., Heywood, was upheld by the North Western Deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. A. H. Jolliffe, at Manchester, last week. The British Transport Commission failed to call evidence in objecting to the company's application to add two six-wheelers, each of 15 tons carrying capacity, to their A licence.
Mr. Dunkerley said Jameson's specialized in a trunk service from Lancashire to the Southampton area with an existing fleet of five A vehicles. They were one of only two regular services from the north-west to that part of the south coast and their own vehicle earnings had increased from £19,000 in 1958 to almost £29,000 in 1959. Hiring during the same period had risen from £4,000 to £16,500.
Mr. P. Kershaw, for the B.T.C., pointed out that in 1958, Jameson's had three vehicles of 21 tons carrying capacity; this was increased to four in January, 1959, and five in September, 1959, totalling 35 tons carrying capacity. An analysis of the figures showed a slight decrease in monthly earnings per vehicle from £587 to £550, yet on this evidence
c4 they were seeking to increase their carrying capacity by 30 tons.
They conceded an extraordinary increase in hiring but three of the four customer witnesses had no complaints as to service. The applicants had taken up fresh customers week by week and built up their business by sub-contracting. The Tribunal had said that this could not be put forward as proof of need, Mr. Kershaw submitted.
Mr. Dunkerley submitted that the objectors had called no evidence to show they could do the work. Ja,meson's had no wish to be a clearing-house but hiring was now more than 50 per cent of their own vehicles' total. On the figures it was his duty to admit that they had proved need for only one additional vehicle.
Granting one of the vehicles sought, Mr. Jolliffe said that this was a reasonable estimate of the need.
COMPANY PLEAD GUILTY
DLEAS of guilty were made by Ben
Bennett Jun., Ltd., Lisle Road, Rotherham, at Rotherham last week on two summonses of failing to cause a driver to keep current records of work. It was claimed that the employee had "let them down," and the company were given an absolute discharge on payment of 8s, costs.
The driver, Harry Carr, Metisford, Hurst Farm Estate, Matlock, was fined a total of £4 with 10s. costs. In a letter he pleaded guilty to driving a vehicle for more than 11 hours in 24 hours, and to two charges of failing to keep current records.