HOW TO PREPARE AND PRESENT APPLICATIONS FOR CARRIE
Page 56
Page 57
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
:NOES
3. Getting the best out of witness d supporting letters
AN aspect to licensing, the importance of which is sometimes not fully appreciated, is the giving of oral evidence before the Licensing Authority at a public inquiry. With perhaps few exceptions, the proceedings in court are more or less informal—and Licensing Authorities and their deputies usually go out of their way to put applicants (and objectors, for that matter) at their ease when giving evidence.
Nowhere is it laid down who should give evidence on behalf of an applicant and, provided that the witness is acting and speaking with the full authority of the applicant, there is no objection to the witness being the traffic manager, the accountant, the proprietor or the managing director. • But on how many occasions at a public inquiry does one come across a witness who is not familiar with the everyday running of the fleet? It happens almost every day— much to the exasperation of all concerned in the court.
Usually the managing director or a director of an applicant company thinks it is right and proper for him to appear before the Authority to put the case for the applicants. There is nothing wrong with this, of course, provided he (or she) is familiar with the running of the vehicles, the finances, and so on. But how often does the "top brass" in a concern know what is going on? The managing director of a large concern cannot be expected to know every minute detail of a conversation that went on between his company and a customer. He may not know why, during a certain month in the previous year, the average earnings of a vehicle were down so much per cent in comparison with their earnings the year before. Probably the transport manager, or even a traffic clerk, knows the answer to this and can give a detailed reply if the matter is queried, as assuredly it will be, by either the Licensing Authority or the objectors.
Who, then, is the best person to go into the witness box? One solicitor puts it this way:
Who should Speak for the Applicant ?
Whoever gives evidence for the company must be a person familiar with the affairs of the company. That person must have knowledge of the contents of all the schedules that have been prepared and are to be produced. He must further be in a position authoritatively to comment upon them. Moreover, he must be able to explain the administration and finances of the company. He should be able to point to the trend of increased business and indicate how he feels that the application will relieve the present difficulties and cater for not only the present need but for future needs. If the case involves Contract A licences he must be able to produce and comment on the agreement or contract; where letters from customers are to be produced in support he must be able to comment on the work undertaken for that customer.
Assuming that sub-contracting has been employed, this witness must explain in detail why, how and to what extent it has been unsatisfactory (if this is the case, of course). He must also say whether the objectors have ever been approached and, if not, why this was not done. If, on the other hand, it had been done, what result was obtained.
If British Railways are among the objectors and, as is so r122 often the case, transportation of the commodity or corn modifies by rail is unsuitable, this witness must be able tc give evidence onthis aspect of the matter. He must say also, what proportion of the sub-contracting is unsuitable Rates may well come into the matter (it is often said b3 the objectors that increased turnover is because of rate! increases). The applicant witness must be able to say whit' increases there have been in the rates charged over tilt periods covered by the documents and also what, if any, licence alterations have been made.
Apart from oral evidence from the applicant, to ensure success it will be necessary to secure the attendance ol witnesses from the principal customer(s) of the applicant It is common practice, also, for letters to be produced ironcustomers who, for some reason or another, are unable to attend the public inquiry. Letters will be dealt witli later.
Supporting Witnesses
Supporting witnesses who attend court should fulls understand what the applicant is asking for and, in the ease of a request to switch from Contract A licence to A or E licence, the witness should fully understand the proposee change and not merely adopt it. The witnesses must be able to give evidence of the advantage which they see accruing to them by the change.
The supporting witnesses should say (if this is the position) that they will continue to use the applicant's services and (if this is the case) that additional business is likely to result in the future; that good though the present services may be it would be even better to have more vehicles more readily available and that if and when more (or larger) vehicles are available, the improved service will be readily used by them as their present need is not met entirely satisfactorily. Further—again if this is the case— they should tell the Licensing Authority that they have been unable to satisfy their present need by sub-contracting or by their own services.
How does one go about obtaining witnesses prepared to go before a Licensing Authority and possibly to be crossexamined by the opposition? There is no objection to an applicant sending a general letter to all customers, explaining that it is sought to improve the present service, and asking for their comments. Those who send favourable replies should be approached to see if they are prepared to give evidence in person. It should be pointed out to all witnesses that an ounce of particularity is worth a ton of generality. One live witness is worth a ton of solicited writing. Any potential new customer should be approached on the lines mentioned above.
To sum up on the question of witnesses, it should be the purpose of an applicant to lay before the Licensing Authority irrefutable proof of an unsatisfied present need which the applicant will, if the licence is granted, be in a position to fulfil and, moreover, he able to run his vehicles more economically and provide a reasonable service to the public.
Supporting Letters
Despite the fact that it has been argued time and time again before Licensing Authorities (and it has been stated
nly recently by the Transport Tribunal) that letters are of ttle value because they cannot be cross-examined, it is still fact that good letters can add considerable weight to ipporting oral evidence. Generally speaking, letters subiitted to Licensing Authorities do not give enough [formation, the writer—through no fault of his ownsually being not too conversant with what is required of im. To ensure that a really effective fetter is written it is ecessary for an applicant (or his solicitor) to write to .istorriers who cannot send witnesses to court, asking them
they will address a letter to the Licensing Authority Dneerned along these suggested lines, stating:— 1 . How long the applicant has been carrying the customer's goods; whether any special service is required in relation to the goods and, if so. whether the applicant has rendered such service in addition 10 mere haulage,
2. What class and type of goods the applicant has been carrying and between what destinations.
+.3. If the applicant has carried the customer's goods satisfactorily and whether the customer wishes him to continue to carry them in the future.
4. Whether the customer's business is expanding (an important matter, this) and, if so, if there will be more goods for the applicant to carry in the future.
5. Whether there will be any change in the destination of any of the customer's goods and, if so, what, 6. If there are any instances where a sub-contractor has been employed because of the applicant's inability to collect and/or deliver goods exactly when the customerwanted them to be collected and/or delivered.
7. If the customer has been inconvenienced by the sending of a hired vehicle—and if so, how?
S. If in consequence of this any inconvenience has been caused not merely to the customer but also to Irk customers
9. Whether the customer can give any specific instances where he was in urgent necessity to have his goods carried and the applicant was unable to carry them, and whether the customer was unable to obtain the services of another haulier.
The above are important matters of information to include in a supporting letter, but if there are, for instance, Railways or British Road Services objections, then it may be prudent to ask a customer to state in his letter whether he uses the objectors and, if not, why the services of such objectors are unsuitable. In the case of a railways objection, too, a customer may well be asked if transshipment of his goods from railway wagon to road delivery vehicle is suitable for his goods and, if so, why.
Building a Reputation In this series I have attempted to give readers a general overall idea of what is required to present an ideal case to a Licensing Authority. It may be said that the suggestions mentioned will cause a great deal of work for, possibly, a small application. But the building up of a reputation in front of a licensing Authority for presenting authoritative and strong cases would he more likely to ensure that future objections are withdrawn or amicably agreed on. Indeed, it is often possible at the start of the hearing, if the evidence is overwhelming, to reach agreement with at least sonic of the objectors. Such evidence would remain of value in any subsequent application.
Rightly or wrongly, a haulier cannot operate his vehicles without a carrier's licence. As I have said before in this series, and I reiterate these words, licensing is therefore the most important aspect in haulage. It is a specialized subject and hauliers—or prospective hauliers, for that matter—should always seek the advice of experts. A hundred or so pounds can be said to be well spent on a solicitor or barrister if it results in the granting of even one additional vehicle.
(Previous articles in this series appeared on January 8 arid 22.)