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 
A-licence Renewal Not to be Automatic
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A LTHOUGH upholding the grant of an additional A-licenc.e .vehicle to Mr. P. A. Thorne, Eastville, Bristol, the Transport Tribunal suggested in London, last week, Etat a renewal .should nOt be automatic. Mr. Hubert Hull, president, pointed out that the vehicle had been added to a licence which expired next September. When that time came, the Western Licensing Authority should demand full evidence about Mr. Thorne's work, and in particular about the use of the new vehicle.
The appeal was lodged by the British Transport Commission, who claimed that the evidence showed no justification for a grant on the grounds of customer need or inconvenience.
Mr. J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon, for Mr. Thorne, said the normal user was general goods, mainly feeding stuffs, machinery and lead within 150 miles. Receipts showed that the two existing vehicles were working to capacity, and customers with expanding trade could not always be served efficiently. The hiring figure had multiplied tenfold in six months.
Giving the Tribunal's decision, Mr. Hull said the substantial figures were no ground for Mr. Thorne's claim. What mattered was whether hiring had proved unsatisfactory to customers. It seemed the inconvenience had been small and there was no evidence that any customer had failed to get work done.