AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Variation before grant Transport Tribunal told

26th July 1968, Page 29
26th July 1968
Page 29
Page 29, 26th July 1968 — Variation before grant Transport Tribunal told
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?

111 No judgment was given when the Transport Tribunal heard the appeal of D. E. Dewhurst and Bailey's (Keep Moving) Ltd. this week against a decision of the North Western LA. J. T. Ward Ltd. was respondent.

Mr. J. Backhouse, for the appellants, said that J. T. Ward Ltd. had been granted a variation to a licence which had not itself been granted. This variation was to replace a flat /tilt by a van with increased weight and with the added condition enabling the carriage of household effects. Mr. Backhouse contended that there had been no evidence presented at the inquiry which proved that the vehicle was required to be a van or that it should be licensed to carry out full removals. The vehicle, he suggested, should either be licensed under its former conditions or with the proviso that it would not be used to do removal work in the Rawtenstall district—the vehicle was officially based at Orrell.

Ward had also applied for two vehicles on A licence, based at Rawtenstall. The LA, said Mr. Backhouse, had granted one vehicle in what he considered a "thin" case. Although he had recognized the objectors' availability, he had thought that the applicant's enterprise justified a grant of some kind. Mr. Backhouse contended that the objectors had presented a stronger case and did not consider any grant to have been justified; a renewal of Ward's B licence, he said, would have been sufficient. In reply, Mr. R. M. Yorke, for the respondent, submitted to the Tribunal that the subject of the appeal against the grant of the Orrell-based vehicle was the flat /tilt vehicle and not the van. As for that part of the appeal referring to the granting of the Rawtenstall-based vehicle, Mr. Yorke said that as the application had not been one to increase the number of vehicles on the road, there had been no need for the applicant to produce witnesses. The LA had therefore been correct in making the grant.

The Tribunal will give its judgment in writing.

Tags

Organisations: Transport Tribunal
Locations: Rawtenstall, Orrell

comments powered by Disqus