Minibus Application Refused
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
4-1 A MINIBUS operator, who had been prosecuted for " pirate running" only last week, on Monday had an application refused and a second application adjourned by the Northern Traffic Commissioners, sitting at Newcastle upon Tyne. He was Mr, Fred Oswald, of Crook, County Durham, who made two applications to run express services for workpeople from Crook.
Mr. Oswald told the Commissioners that he owned two minibuses which he hired out to Private parties, but his full time occupation was that of a general dealer.. In October, the Bank Foot Coking plant closed down and the men transferred to the Brancepeth Coke Works. He had been approached by these men and asked to provide a service to get them to the works in time for shifts.
Asked by the chairman, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, how the men were getting to work at present, Mr. Oswald said that United Automobile Services were carrying them as far as Crook, and they then walked the rest of the way, a distance of nearly a mile.
Fined £40
Cross-examined by Mr. J. L. R. Croft, for United, the applicant admitted that only a few days previously he had been prosecuted at Crook for illegal operation and fined a total of £40.
Asked how he could possibly operate to the proposed timetable and also undertake the operation of another service he was applying for between Crook and the Spennymoor Trading Estate, Mr, Oswald said that if the applications were both granted there would be no reason why he should not get another minibus—" After all, United would put another bus on if there was the work there," he added, When Mr. Hanlon pointed out that the application form described the vehicle as a 12-seater or a 29-seater, Mr. Oswald said that if the licence was granted, be could not carry all the people and would have no alternative but to get a 29-seater bus.
Dealing with his second application, Mr. Oswald said that he had been approached by a Mrs. Coiling on behalf of several women workers, asking him to provide a service to and from the Spennymoor Trading Estate for 10 people. Mrs. Coiling had also written to the Traffic Commissioners,
Mr. Hanlon refused the first application on the grounds of no evidence. Concerning the second application, be said the Commissioners were in a difficulty. They had no information as to how it would affect the person who had written to them. They proposed to adjourn the application, to ascertain this information,