"Trailer Weight Need Not Be Stated"
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Mr. Campbell Wardlaw Stimulates Lengthy Discussion Before Mr. Hanlon
A SUBMISSION by Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, for Joseph Elliott " and Co. (Bishop Auckland), Ltd., that the weight of a trailer need not be specified in a licence application gave rise to' lengthy argument before Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, Northern Licensing Authority, at Bishop Auckland last week.
, Mr. A. W. Balne, for B.R.S.(Pickfords), Ltd., contested Mr. Wardlaw's view, and Mr. Hanlon said that he was not going to grant a licence for a trailer without knowing its weight until the Transport Tribunal told him he could.
The Elliott concern, whose shares had been taken over by Messrs. Sunter Bros., Northallerton, sought to transfer from special-A to ordinary-A licence a lowJoacler to carry abnormal indivisible loads. Pickfords and Robert Wynn, Ltd., objected.
• Mr. T. Sunter said that in July. Elliott had successfully applied for an A licence for a prime mover under special A. Its weight was 12 tons 9 cwt, if used as a drawbar tractor or not exceeding 10 tons as an articulated tractor. Reference had been made then to a trailer remaining upon special-A licence for the time being. This trailer was the subject of the current application. It was being operated at 22 tons 14 cwt.
Mr. Elaine pointed out that this was not disclosed on the application, and asked Mr. Wardlaw to explain. Mr. Wardlaw replied simply that the application •was for a low-loader.
Entitled to Ask "Certain difficulties" had arisen in the
Northern Area, Mr. Hanlon interposed, and he had ruled that the weights of all vehicles on A licences should be specified, although there was no provision for this in the 1953Act so far as special-A licences were concerned. In any case, an Authority was entitled to. ask the weight.
Mr. Wardlaw then submitted that there.
was no distinction between ordinaryand special-A licences in this respect. According to Sections 2 and 5 of the 1933 Act, an applicant must provide only particulars of the number and type of trailers to be used. Nowhere in that Act could it be found that a trailer was to be referred to by weight, and an applicant need -not
supply particulars of weight. • Section 2 of the Act, submitted Mr. Balne, contained a general direction to Authorities, but one had to turn to the Goods Vehicles' (Licences and Prohibitions) Regulations, 1952, governing the application of the wishes of the Minister of Transport.
The second part of these Regulations specified form GV1A, which called for a description of the Vehicle sought, So
far as trailers were toficerned, aPplicant was asked to describe not only the number but'-'also the weight: SupportingMr. Baines' argument. Mr. N. Wynn Said that if the Tribunal upheld a decisionentitlIng an applicant to the grant of a trailer of no specified weight
B32
they would allow the use of any trailer. The consequences would. be "remarkable" and the licensing system would fall to the ground, he added.
Mr. Wardlaw said that there was no such danger as foreseen by Mr. Wynn. The Act contained adequate safeguards regulating the maximum number and types of trailers. Moreover, the capacity of a trailer depended upon the power of the prime mover.
He contended that it as accepted that trailers were freely interchangeable. If a •trailer had to be specified by weight on a licence, a serious blow would be struck at trailer operators.
Responding to a question by Mr, Hanlon. Mr. Wardlaw pressed home his point by saying that there was nothing to prevent a concern who applied for a special-A licence for a trailer at a certain weight from altering it without notifying the Authority.
The applicants acceded to Mr. Hanlon's insistence and Mr. Sunter entered the weight of the trailer upon the application form, but without prejudice to Mr. Wardlaw's submission. This done, Mr. Hanlon granted the application, being satisfied that Elliott's case had not been rebutted by the objectors.
He said he was concerned whether Elliott had breached Section 9(4) of the 1.953 Act. Whilst be could not agree with Mr. Wardlaw's argument, he bore in mind that the trailer was of 'the same type as originally granted, and fhat tractor power governed its capacity. He did not think that the company's conduct called for disciplinary action.
Other issues were discussed during the hearing of the case. Mr. Hanlon asked Mr. Sunter if he considered that a person With an A-licensed trailer was entitled to use any tractor specified under A licence to draw it. Mr. Sunter said that he
thought that right. • Mr. Balne and Mr. Wardlaw were then invited by the Authority for their views on a proposition put before him recently. It had been claimed that a contract A-licensed tractor could be used with an A-licensed trailer so long as the goods were those for which the contract-A licence was granted.
Correct View
Mr. Wardlaw said that he .held that view, Mr. Sunter observed that its correctness was upheld by the fact that second tractors could be used for doubleheading. Mr. Balne submitted that the list of goods carried by the trailer concerned in the case did not show which tractor drew them.
Pickfords, he went on, would no longer be interested in the application if it were amended to comply with the grant made to Elliott for a trailer limited to 60 tons capacity. Although he knew that the late Mr. Elliott had taken over 131-ton solidtyrcd trailers from the British Transport Commission, he was unaware that Mr. Elliott had agreed with the B.T.C. that the " proper and modern replacements" for such vehicles were of 151tons.
Mr. Elliott had been granted a 151-ton trailer in March, 1956, but the licence had never been taken up. Pickfords were disturbed to find that the combination of tractor and trailer that Elliott sought was to be in the "really heavy" class, Mr. Balne said . that he doubted whether six loads of 80 tons claimed to have been carried by the applicants had in fact been hauled by them. Such loads were inconsistent with the nature of .Elliott's work up to the time of Mr. Sunter's influence.
Trailers of 151 tons with pneumatic tyres were not modern replacements for old solid-tyrcd 131-tonners, stated Mr. Sunter. Neither was the maximum capacity of an old trailer only 54 tons. He said that he still had . solid-tyred trailers which could carry 80-100 tons.
-Mr. Balne then asked Mr. Sunter what tractor had pulled such loads. Mr. Sunter replied that this had nothing to do with the case.
In the Pickfords organization, said Mr. W. Partington, an area manager, the proper replacement for a 45-ton solidtyred trailer was one of about 153tom which could carry up to 60 tons.