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 
Haulier Seeks to Carry Return Loads
Page 70
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
1-1 A RECENT grant by Mr. 3. A. T. Hanlon, the Northern Licensing Authority, for seven additional vehicles on A licence to Wilfred Whites' Transport Services, Ltd., was cited by Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw as an example of the Transport Tribunal's attitude, when he applied for a B licence vehicle to be placed on an A licence, at Newcastle upon Tyne, last week.
Mr. Wardlaw said the applicant, Mr. Septimus Cook, of Consett, a brother of Siddle C. Cook, was operating the vehicle under a licence which permitted him to carry road and building materials within 15 miles of base, opencast coal in northwest Durham and goods for Siddle C. Cook, Ltd.
For a number of years the vehicle had been used almost exclusively on subcontract work for Siddle C'. Cook, Ltd., but his client now sought to have the vehicle specified on an A licence so that he could carry return loads.
Mr. Wardlaw contended that the application was quite sound, in law. The principle affirmed by the Transport Tribunal and by Mr. Hanlon himself, was that if a person were allowed to carry goods outward and the need were shown, he was entitled to carry return loads.
When Mr. Hanlon questioned this, Mr. Wardlaw referred to Whites' application which, he pointed out, Mr. Hanlon had granted "without, even, a public inquiry."
Mr. I. Robey, representing the British Transport Commission who were objecting to the application, interjected and said that Mr. Wardlaw had already referred to Whites' grant on at least two previous occasions before the Deputy Authority. In answer to a question by Mr. Hanlon whether there had been an anneal against the grant, Mr. Wardlaw asked, "How can there be an appeal?" Mr. Hanlon replied that if there had been no appeal, that NS an end to the matter and it was not decision that should be quoted in ot1 cases.
Mr. Robcy explained that Whit application had been published in t normal way and, because there were : objections, the grant had been made " office." Whites' application, be explain( sought to authorizeadditional vehicles an existing A licence to carry spec: traffics on specially constructed vehiell The grant should not be used as a tone stone in the present application, submitted.
Giving evidence, Mr. Septimus Coi said that he operated solely for t family firm of Siddle C. Cook, Ltd., as sub-contractor carrying long steel all ov the country. Whilst Siddle C. Co( had, on occasions, been able to flu return loads for him, this had occasional proved difficult, Because of the candid() on his licence, he had often had to refu return loads offered to him, in particul from the B.R.S. depot at Corby.
Extra Work Giving his decision Mr. Hanlon sal having regard to the importance whii was now placed upon declarations , normal user, the application was n, substantially such an important matter ; it seemed. Whatever, conditions ti vehicle was working under, it could n, do much more work, because if it we carrying a return load, it could not g home so quickly.
It could, however, be operated ma: economically. Special type vehicles we so expensive to buy and to run that the numbers should be limited as far as po sible, and they should be operated economically as possible—a princip: that had been well established for year It was proper, therefore, to make a gran subject to amendment of the normal usi to "goods for Siddle C. Cook, Ltd., an return loads," and subject to the su render of the B licence.