'Wrong to Specify. Maintenance on Normal User'
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE West Midland deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. R. Hall, ruled at a public inquiry in Birmingham last week that it would be bad licensing practice to word a normal user in such a way as to indicate that the vehicles concerned would be used as replacements for A, Contract A and B vehicles out of service for repairs or maintenance.
Joseph Foulkes (Wednesfield) Ltd. was applying for a new 33-vehicle A licence, including 18 artics. The application was granted, and the company undertook to surrender its existing 27-vehicle A licence.
Mr. Norman Carless, for the applicants, explained that his clients had originally, asked for seven additional vehicles—six artics and a tipper. However, agreement had been reached with the objectors, British Railways Board, by reducing the application to six vehicles and by applying for this maintenance normal user in respect of three vehicles— two artics and a tipper.
Mr. Carless said he would produce evidence showing the firm was in considerable difficulty with its maintenance schedule. it was not feasible to use the lengthy procedure under Regulation 14 when vehicles would he out of service for only a day or two. During the past three months, 4,371 vehicle hours had been lost through maintenance.
The deputy Authority indicated that he was not happy about the normal user wording for the three replacement vehicles, and after hearing technical submissions from Mr. Carless and Mr. Herbert Simpson, appearing for the British Railways Board, he retired to consider this matter.
Mr. Hall ruled that he was bound by the law to take into consideration the question of vehicles being maintained when dealing with the question of quantum. It followed that the larger the fleet the more vehicles he should allow to cover those temporarily taken off the road.
However, declaring specified vehicles on the normal user for the definite purpose of acting as replacements was not the correct way to go about it, and was, in fact, bad licensing practice, if not contrary to the law.
In evidence, Foulkes gave an undertaking that an average of three vehicles would be off the road for maintenance or repair at any given time.
Mr. Frederick Dudley, Foulkes' office manager, produced schedules showing that his firm's A-licence vehicles were earning over £5,000 per year. With a change of crews they were working 22 hours in 24.
Foulkes was also granted a new 13-vehicle. B licence. This did not increase the number of vehicles but altered the conditions on some to provide greater flexibility for the fleet.