An LA's nightmare
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Transport Tribunal has adjourned .s hearing of an appeal made by JET, and W. Taylor against the decision of the Vest Midland LA not to grant an A icence in an application in which two were ought. None of the 12 respondents was epresented at the appeal.
The Taylors, said Mr M. A. Thorpe, for he appellants, had been carrying motor arts for J. Sankey and Son Ltd. on one of ts vehicles, but at the public inquiry the LA tad produced a letter from that company nforming him that Sankey no longer wishxl to employ the appellants' services and xould not, therefore, be able to support any applications made by the appellants. It had been stated at the inquiry, however, that this :.ustomer had been adequately replaced and that there had been no drop in earnings in this part of the appellants' business.
A representative of S. Dunning and Sons Ltd., continued Mr Thorpe, had told the LA that his company had been employing the appellants' services but it had been discovered that this had incurred a breach 3f the normal user. Since May 1967, however, Sankey's work had been carried Jut on contract A-licensed vehicles. If the application had been granted, Sankey, according to its representative, had intended to use two A-licensed vehicles for one-third to a half of their time.
The LA told the applicants to the inquiry
that he would need further details about the work done by the vehicles between the beginning of May to the end of October 1967. After he had received certain information, the LA informed the Taylors that he would grant an A licence for one of the vehicles but not for the other with the declared normal user. Were the Taylors to redeclare the normal user as "roofing materials for S. Dunning and Sons Ltd. within 150 miles", he would have made a grant for that vehicle also.
After receiving that letter, the Taylors, said Mr Thorpe, sent the LA modified accounts showing that considerable earnings were being made from carrying motor parts for a company other than Sankey, and asking the LA to reconsider his decision. The LA, however, was not prepared to do this.
Mr Thorpe contended that in this case, "an LA's nightmare" and one of such complexity and fluidity, it had been impossible for the LA to get all the points absolutely clear without the advantage, which the Tribunal now had, of hindsight.
The Tribunal decided to reiterate the LA's decision giving the appellants the opportunity to redeclare the normal user for the vehicle which the LA had not licensed.