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
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160 
Licensinga waste of time?
Page 35
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
"I T is generally a waste of time to come to an inquiry without the necessary evidence."
So says Mr. D. I. R. Muir, the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, in his circular lVfTA 57, which is issued to all new applicants for a carrier's licence. Not only lack of evidence wastes the LA's time; too much evidence, inarticulate applicants, vague witnesses and loquacious advocates all do much towards creating a licensing bottleneck.
In January, 1965, COMMERCIAL MOTOR published three articles which detailed how to prepare and present an application for a carrier's licence. Admittedly, many of the present "offenders" are new carriers who could not have benefited from previous articles but there is still a large percentage of the persons involved who are established hauliers and who should know better. The 1960 Road Traffic Act clearly states that the LA in exercising his discretion must have regard to the interests of the public generally, including primarily those of persons requiring facilities for transport and secondly those of persons providing facilities for transport. If the LAs have to function as their terms of reference state, they must be provided with accurate evidence either in writing prior to the public inquiry or verbally at the public inquiry.
Most common mistake
The most common mistake made by applicants is in expecting an LA to accept letters from "customers" as proof of need. Recently, an applicant at Preston sought to extend the radius of his B licence. The dossier indicated that when the licensee had taken over the business three years ago, letters of support were received from almost one dozen local traders promising their custom. A schedule of recent usage, which proved increased turnover, in fact indicated at the same time that these customers no longer used this haulier.
The LA in most cases does not accept the fact that a letter written on company letterhead, no matter how impressive, is proof of need. There is no substitute for a personal appearance. Anything less is a waste of time.
The Preston haulier had produced a schedule of current usage. Many applicants merely tell the LA under cross-examination that they do not have any spare capacity and that they have had difficulty in obtaining vehicles from any other haulier who is prepared to sub-contract. The time wasted on such matters is incalculable, and such cases are not confined to unrepresented hauliers. Too often advocates have not been briefed in time to collate these schedules as one feels sure they would do, given time. A diary showing dates and requirement together with figures of vehicles actually received and how long traffic was consequently delayed is an essential part of evidence.
In a recent Scottish Northern Area case the applicant produced such an abundance of evidence of difficulty, that the LA suggested that it would be easier if the applicant stated when he had been successful in obtaining sub-hires. He had little difficulty in proving need. Diaries are, of course, not new but too often applicants begin to collect information after objections have been lodged. Consequently the LA is obliged to probe further back for proof of need and there is as a result further waste of time, as this information is not available in the diary. Applications of this nature are frequently refused.
An all-time classic
Lack of lucid evidence, however, is not the only time-consuming factor in this business. Applicants — unbelievably — appear in court without any real clue as to the content of their application. One case which must surely rank as an all-time classic was heard at Nottingham recently, as part of the massive "Goods for Fletcher" case. The result of this case is not yet known and therefore it would be imprudent to name the haulier concerned. He had applied for a variation of his B licence to carry solid fuels during the period November-March as directed by A. Fletcher and Co., and appeared prepared to give evidence for a variation to carry tippable materials, England and Wales. The resultant crosstalk was not only embarrassing to all concerned but wasted too much court time. Another applicant in this case sought to leave to go to his accountant in Leicester to have his statement of accounts certified, while another arrived one day late. If only applicants realized it, the LA could save court time by immediately dismissing the case and sending them off to gather their evidence, thereafter to make a fresh application.
Applicants are not the only culprits in this sphere. Objectors have an unusual capacity for taking up too much court time. Almost invariably British Rail and BRS appear as objectors. I have heard them referred to at various times as "The Big Two", "The Heavenly Twins" and more recently and irreverently as "Pinky and Perky". The regularity with which they appear as objectors has given rise to the belief that they object automatically to every application. This belief is strengthened by the fact that recently they objected to a B licence application at Leeds, where a farmer sought to carry produce from his base at Thirsk. British Railways pointed out that they were providing rail facilities from Thirsk. They failed to point out that British Railways intended to close that rail siding in the immediate future. This is a waste of time.
More recently, at the Metropolitan traffic court an applicant produced a letter from his local BR representative stating that he was unable to accept his traffic. The BR representative in court refused to withdraw the objection as he had no knowledge of the letter. A complete waste of time.
Suggestion was nonsense
When Mark One Transport Ltd. applied for a licence to carry scrap metal to the Midlands and South Wales, BRS objected despite the fact that they did not have suitable vehicles available. So strongly did they feel about the application that it was suggested for them that using a non-sided platform lorry with a sheeted load would have the desired effect. This, of course, was nonsense and I. suspect that the advocate and the BRS representative knew this. A flat lorry would have reduced the payload by one third and what scrap metal does to a £60 sheet has to be seen to be believed. If BRS were not aware of this then they should have taken advice on the matter or checked their facts beforehand. If they did, then why did they trouble to put the proposal forward? This was another waste of court time, and not an isolated case. All too often we hear advocates suggesting that their clients are capable of carrying out the work if certain modifications are made to the operation.
In the field of objection. BRS and British Railways, while regular are not alone, and certainly they would require to pull out all of the stops to produce a more extraordinary objection than that of I. Leftley (operating as CFT) who were represented in the Metropolitan court as objectors to Hungarocamion Industrial Transport Association. The basis of the objection was that it had previously carried the goods now proposed to be carried for M. and S. Shipping Ltd. by Hungarocamion. However, objectors are under the same obligation as applicants when the question of proof arises. They must be able to show spare available capacity. This objector claimed that he had spare capacity but did not produce documentary supporting evidence. I suspect that they would have found it difficult to do so. Last week I. Leftley made application for six A licences for vehicles to be based at Immingham. The managing director of the company, Mr. Peter Rothschild, told the LA that his company had to bring vehicles from the Metropolitan zone to cater for the Immingham traffic. Surely the answer was to make application to transfer the base for the six London vehicles; this would almost certainly have been granted without any public inquiry and would have absorbed the spare capacity, if any existed.
In a short space of four weeks, spare capacity became a shortage. In fact, the evidence for the application must have been prepared before the objection was heard. Surely such an objection could jeopardize one's own application?
The passenger field
Time wasting is not confined to the goods operator; the passenger field has its share of the ridiculous. One operator recently sought to change his pick-up point in London and under cross-examination he told the Commissioner that 32 licences obtained in 1962 had not yet been used. How long it took to compile an application for such a grant I don't know, but the time was all wasted. Last week at the Metropolitan court, London Transport Board objected to Autotours Ltd., of Earls Court Road, being granted a picking up point in the Earls Court Area for tours to Europe and Scandinavia, Spain and Portugal. They suggested as an alternative "the Victoria area"—note, not Victoria Coach Station. The Board claimed that they could carry the passengers between these two points. Now, abstraction of traffic is one thing but this is ridiculous. Autotours carry about 300 passengers each year. The fare between the two points in London is 2s. return, a gross annual income of £30—hardly likely to reduce the annual Underground deficit appreciably. Of course, the cost of time and money to the LTB to raise this objection I cannot calculate, but this I can say: it was wasted. The objection failed.
Witnesses.
In the previous articles, referred to above, we pointed out that it was always advisable to take to court witnesses who could speak with authority and knowledge. The names of the managing director or company secretary may make impressive reading on the transcript but with what knowledge can they speak? At Reading and at Soho Square in recent months a company secretary and a company accountant spoke in the stead of the transport manager, in support of an application. They could say very little at first hand. "I understand that" or "I believe so", in answer to a question, tells the LA little or nothing on which he can base his decision, and is again a waste of time.
Challenging a decision is also a very popular way of wasting time. Surely, if the facts have been properly presented to the LA, little can come of an appeal.
Lesson in productivity
The Transport Tribunal seldom upholds an appeal but the British way of life demands that "justice must be seen to have been done" and so even an eight-day marathon like the Mid-Southern Tippers case must have a further four-day airing at Watergate House, and a further waste of time. Here the Tribunal handed out a lesson in productivity. They made the result known to the interested parties, but their reasons were published later. The appellants knew where they stood and could get on with their jobs.
At the Transport Tribunal last week, we had the almost unique situation of the two advocates in the H. Hewitt and Co. (Haulage) Ltd. appeal contesting whether or not the appeal should have been allowed. Earlier in June, at Nottingham. the LA told one advocate: "This case will take long enough if we ask each question once." This came after he had asked the same question three times in different ways. This not only wastes time but it does suggest that the LA cannot immediately grasp the situation—hardly complimentary.
Happily, not all applicants, objectors and advocates waste court time, but too many still do. This country is in the throes of an economic crisis because, according to informed circles, we are under-productive. While an increase in productivity at the licensing courts is unlikely to solve our national economic problems at least the attitude of mind could spread.
One application to be heard very soon is being objected to by a considerable number of applicants, and-they have told me that the reason is one of efficiency. Apparently, the applicant is so efficient in anything he does that his objectors fear his entry into their field of operation. Will they tell the LA this, or will they waste time by futilely claiming that they have spare capacity, while in fact they have applications pending?
Its own plaything
The haulage industry complains about being the plaything of successive governments. But it has made the licensing system its own particular plaything, by its spoiling tactics. If the reason is ignorance of the procedure, then consult an advocate—be it a barrister, solicitor or transport consultant, and COMMERCIAL MOTOR is always ready to give advice.
There can be little reason for this costly and futile time-wasting which, although small, is helping to reduce our productivity. Lucky the haulier who has time to waste, but I have yet to meet one who agrees that he has money to throw away.
The next time you are considering a doubtful application, a very weak objection or a heat-of-the-moment appeal—count the cost in time and money.