Sullivan Wins Appeal
Page 33
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN appeal by W. Sullivan Ltd. against the grant of a five-vehicle 13 licence to Jelks Transport Ltd. by the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, was allowed by the Transport Tribunal on Wednesday. Mr. R. M. Yorke appeared for the appellants and Mr. M. H. JacksonLipkin for the respondents. Mr. Yorke told the Tribunal that Sullivan, established in 1872, had not previously lodged any objections. The company resented the addition of "office furniture" to the old B-licence conditions.
The Jelks and Sullivan businesses, Mr. Yorke continued, formerly occupied adjacent sites. The Jelks business was
derelict ". and Sullivan was embarrassed by the old vehicles operated by its neighbour. On the take-over of the Jelks business by C. E. Dormer Ltd., new premises were acquired and Mr. G. E. Lipscombe, formerly employed by Sullivan, became a director of Jelks. Some work was transferred to the reconstructed business. said Mr. Yorke. The Jelks concern had been moving office furniture, illegally, for a considerable time. When told by a Ministry examiner, it "affected to misunderstand" and continued the moving. The company hoped. when the additional condition was applied for, to put its house in „order. Despite what the LA had called "a casual attitude to the licensing system justifying a severe warning. he had granted the application. There was no evidence of need for the "office furniture" condition. said Mr. Yorke: in fact, all such orders were sub-contracted. There was also ambiguity in the term: it might include typewriters or tape recorders: but it should not include costly computers and similar equipment. Mr. Jackson-Lipkin submitted that if the LA. after hearing the evidence, had exercised his discretion in favour of Jelks. it was wrong to subject his discretion to appeal. Invoices proving previous carriage of office furniture had been considered.
MORE EXAMINERS
THE Ministry of Transport has now announced the start of the recruitment of the addition of another MO traffic examiners to its existing staff of just over 100. Mr. C. M. Green is the full-time enforcement chief responsible for the co-ordinating and developing of the wcrk of traffic exam:ners.
The Ministry has also announced that :t will recruit a further 150 driving examiners to reduce the test backlog.
HEAVY HAULAGE 'BIDS WITHDRAWN
BIDS by_ heavy haulage associates Elliott Hauliers Ltd. and Elliott Hauliers (Northern) Ltd., to uplift the weight of two "articulated tractors ", opposed by Pickfords, Siddle C. Cook Ltd.,. Sunter Bros. Ltd., Robert Wynn and Sons (Manchester) Ltd., and Robert Wynn and Sons Ltd., collapsed at Leeds last week. The applications were withdrawn after the Yorkshire deputy Licensing 'Authority, Mr. J. H. E. Randolph, commented first: "It seems a waste of time to go on with this matter", arid then, when one application went on alone: " Fin not going on with this application . . . it is quite absurd ".
Elliott Hauliers Ltd. applied to replace an 8-ton "articulated tractor" by a 10-ton unit; Elliott Hauliers (Northern) Ltd. sought to replace a 12j--ton unit with an 18-ton unit, although during the inquiry the applicants suggested this could be reduced to 16 tons.
A 1(10-tonner?
Mr. A. W. Balne, for Pickfords, said the reason the objectors were present in such force was because they understood one of the applicant companies had placed an order for a trailer of around 100 tons carrying capacity. This could put them into an entirely new field of heavy haulage activity, he submitted. No application had yet been published to uplift their trailer weights, but theobjectors contended that the application to uplift the tractor weights should be heard with the trailer application. Otherwise, suggested Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, for the other objectors, it would simply be the first stage in a series of applications
For a Drawbar Trailer The hearings of both applications began together,
The Elliott Hauliers (Northern) Ltd. application eventually was withdrawn to be republished when Mr. E, Elliott, managing director of both companies, described the unit to replace the present 20-year-old Diamond T outfit—a rebuilt ex-US Army Pacific with drive on all six wheels--as a tractor and the objectors protested that the application as published was for an "articulated tractor ". Mr. Elliott agreed it would be a tractor for towing a trailer by drawbar. When the deputy LA said the previous licence was for an articulated tractor and articulated trailer, Mr. Elliott said an application had been approved in the Northern traffic area some four or five years ago for a drawbar trailer and he must have " fallen between two stools " in the description on the present application.
After the application was withdrawn, the Elliott Hauliers Ltd. application was then allowed to proceed. but after some evidence was given this also was withdrawn.
A32