AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Traffic Courtship

28th May 1954, Page 55
28th May 1954
Page 55
Page 55, 28th May 1954 — Traffic Courtship
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Political Commentary By JANUS

NOW that a year has elapsed since the passing of the Transport Act, it may be worth analysing what effect the new licensing provisions have had upon the procedure in the traffic courts. They have so far led to no dramatic changes in the composition of the road haulage industry. The reason may be to some extent that prospective hauliers, and hauliers wishing to enlarge their businesses, have preferred to apply to the Disposal Board and the Commission rather than to the Licensing Authority, When the sale of transport units comes to an end there may be more interest in the improved opportunities that the Act provides for new entrants and for the expansion of established fleets.

In the meantime, nothing very slartling has happened. The more extreme prophecies have certainly not been fulfilled. There was a suggestion at one time that the transfer to the objector of the onus of proof would compel the railways to abandon their role of universal objection, and would thus lead to the dissolution of the road and rail negotiating committees, In fact, the Commission have continued to play a prominent part in the traffic courts, and over the past few months the negotiating committees, at social functions in different parts of the country, have drawn the usual tributes from Licensing Authorities and others.

The shift of the onus has, however, not been without :fleet. Objectors have found it necessary to brush up their traffic courtship. They have had to prepare their cases more carefully than before, and to attend in person where previously they had left the duty to somebody else. The Transport Tribunal, who now hear ippeals against the decisions of Licensing Authorities, have applied the new sub-section rigorously and require a high standard of evidence.

Attention to Facilities

In the case of the Commission v. A. H. Gore, the Tribunal paid particular attention to information about the facilities that British Road Services had for doing the work for which the applicant required a licence. Tables were presented on behalf of B.R.S. to show, among other things, to what extent tippers at the depot in question had been without employment.

When figures plainly unrepresentative of the general availability of B.R.S. vehicles had been extracted from this "schedule of availability," it appeared to the Tribunal that the carrying capacity was unemployed, during the period under consideration, to an extent of about 12 per cent Such a percentage was thought insufficient to show that facilities were in excess of requirements. The Tribunal held that the Commission had failed to discharge the onus of proof imposed on them as objectors by Section 9 (3) (a) of the 1953 Act, and their appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal have also had an opportunity to give some consideration to the strong hint—for it is scarcely more than that—that rates may be taken into account by Licensing Authorities when considering objections. In an appeal against the granting of a licence for the carriage of refuse from a R.A.F. station there were unusual features that may prevent the case from becoming a classic. The operator who appealed had previously held the contract for the work, and had lost it to a man who submitted a lower tender. In allowing the appeal, the Tribunal made it clear that an applicant for a licence must supply the Authority with sufficient facts. It was not enough to say that he was in a position to do the work more cheaply. • The issue here was relatively simple. It seems likely that in due course the Tribunal and the Licensing Authorities will be called upon to go further into the question of charges. Another point concerning which little has so far been heard is Section 9 (4), providing for the revocation or suspension of an A or B licence if the holder has made false statements in order to get it. The provision can operate harshly, for it applies whether or not the mis-statement is deliberate, and the penalty is the same even when the offender is not the applicant but a witness on his behalf. The false statement may be made in order to secure a variation, but the licence as a whole would be forfeit.

Obnoxious to Hauliers

This item is especially obnoxious to hauliers. All the way through the discussions on the Transport Bill, later to become the Transport Act, they opposed the inclusion of any amendments to the licensing procedure. Their main argument was that the Bill would in any case profoundly alter the structure of the road haulage industry. It would be better to leave licensing as it was until the dust of disposal had settled. On the passenger side, the Minister had been content not to interfere with the existing order at least until he had received the report of the Thesiger Committee.

Hauliers have now had to accept the changes in Section 9. They must still have qualms about the falsehood clause which, it must be admitted, casts some doubt upon the reliability of their word. At present, however, the main target for their criticism is a creature of the 1933 dispensation, the farmer with a C licence that he uses in order to carry goods for hire or reward. The opinion of hauliers is hardening in favour of the complete repeal of the section of the 1933 Act that gives the farmer this right.

There have been one or two attempts by Licensing Authorities to set limits within which this privilege should be exercised. In one case, an operator who had used his C-licensed vehicle to carry for farmers living as far as 20 miles away, and had also carried items not easily coming within the definition of agricultural produce, was refused the renewal of a B licence. The Authority gave him three months' grace, and warned him to comply strictly with the terms of his B licence during that time, and to limit his C-licence activities to carrying for farmers living within a radius of five miles from his home. A similar warning against the abuse of a C licence has since been given to an operator in another traffic area.

The most significant of the licensing changes brotight about by the 1953 Act may ultimately prove to be the revision that places the user and the provider of transport in an uncontrovertible order of merit. In exercising their discretion, Licensing Authorities arc to "have regard to the interests of the public generally, including primarily those of persons requiring facilities for transport and secondarily those of persons providing facilities for transport."


comments powered by Disqus