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 
The Goods-carrying " Minibus " Appeal
Page 65
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
LICENSING CASEBOOK by NORMAN'H.T1LSLEY
Previous "Unorthodox" Traffic Can Support a Grant
I AST week the Transport Tribunal were asked to deal with an appeal
concerning miniature passenger-carrying vehicles (commonly called " minibuses ") and their use as goods vehicles. They were told that there were several cases now before the Tribunal concerning the use of these vehicles and that waiting to be heard before the Divisional Court, and due to be considered any moment now, was a test appeal concerning similar vehicles fitted with roof racks
Again and again, recently, the question has arisen as to whether these vehicles are "goods vehicles" within the meaning of the Act, or not.
The appellants, Roy Bowles Transport, Ltd., of Hounslow, had sought the advice of the Middlesex County Council, vwho sent an inspector to look at one of their "minibuses," and it was his opinion, put in evidence in the form of a letter, that was accepted by both sides as being the correct yardstick. The county council considered that the vehicle was essentially constructed as a passenger vehicle, and the carriage of persons and goods would not affect this, provided the seats were left in place. Removal of the seats, on the other hand, would constitute an adaptation sufficient to render the vehicle liable to goods vehicle taxation and, presumably, call for a carrier's licence if goods were to be carried. Bowles, " backed " by the county council's inspector, were operating a substantial haulage business, using private, unlicensed "minibuses" (with the seats in place, of course)—an operation that was quite legal, as everybody agreed before the Tribunal, even though the operation was said to be "unorthodox."
The Best Answer The second issue in the appeal—and the Tribunal were especially asked to give guidance on this matter—concerned what evidence a Licensing Authority should take into account in considering applications. They, were asked by Mr. C. R. Beddington, for Roy Bowles Transport, whether or not an Authority should take into account goodwill built up on unlicensed private vehicle operation. Here, perhaps, the Tribunal went a little farther than Mr. Beddington expected.
As reported in The Commercial Motor last week, Sir Hubert Hull, giving the Tribunal's judgment, said that evidence based on unorthodox traffic—" whether it be traffic carried in a vehicle, on a bicycle, or by people on their two legs, or in a pram," was just as much entitled to consideration as showing a need as any other evidence. "The best answer in the world that an applicant can give to the question 'How do you know there is a need for your services?' is," Sir Hubert said; "'Because I have been carrying these goods already.'"
The Roy Bowles appeal covered a wide variety of points that are likely to crop up in similar applications in the future and it will, perhaps. be of advantage to give a résumé of the case.
Bowles were appealing against the refusal of the Metropolitan Deputy to specify on a B licence five vehicles with special conditions allowing the carriage of air freight within 30 miles of London Airport, and to and from diversionary airports as required. The vehicles were all " minibuses."
'Public Interest
. After dealing with the history of the appellant firm, illustrating the very rapid growth from one vehicle in 1957 to 20 at present, nine of them "minibuses." Mr. Beddington put his case in this way.
"Here is a service which has been built up on the basis of private operation," he said "It has been carried out with vehicles designed to carry passengers, which are not constructed or adapted to carry goods, and it is perfectly proper to use them without a carrier's licence.
"In the public interest it is desirable," he submitted, "that the business should continue to be provided, but it is desirable that it should not continue to be based on private vehicles for several reasons—Bowles would like to use ordinary commercial vehicles, which are cheaper to purchase; drivers were having difficulty delivering loads because traffic wardens were moving them on, etc.
"The position," Mr. Beddington went on, "is that the business had got out of hand. When an operator has a fleet of considerable size, highly organized and providing a regular and efficient roundthe-clock, radio-controlled service, it becomes absurd to continue providing that service with vehicles not properly designed for the job.
"In my submission, this is an unorthodox and inappropriate way of continuing. once the development of this traffic reaches a stage where it becomes regular.(The Tribunal neither agreed nor die-, agreed with this submission.)
"The Deputy Authority said in his decision that he did not like the way Bowles had gone about it '_(e.g„ carrying goods on unlicensed, private vehicles, and then asking to be licensed). He seemed to have forgotten that the whole point of the application was to bring the vehicles within the licensing system, to put an end to the unorthodoxy."
Sir Hubert Hull: "On this view, carrying things in a pony trap is unorthodox, is it?"
An Academic Point Bringing forward a purely academic point, Mr. J. M. Timmons, for the B.T.C. who, together with F. V. Carroll and Sons, were the respondents, said that the vital part of the Act was section 164, which referred to the use of goods vehicles and the necessity for the user to hold carriers' licences. He accepted that the vehicles were passenger vehicles,, and in those circumstances asked the Tribunal to say that they (the Tribunal) were not concerned with granting licences in respect of passenger vehicles.
Under section 168(4) the conditions of a carrier's licence could not apply to the use of an unauthorized vehicle for a purpose for which it could lawfully be used without the authority of a carrier's licence. The vehicles could already he lawfully used in the way Bowles were using them and the effect of any grant would therefore be a nullity, Mr. Timmons submitted. (The Tribunal, quite rightly, would give no pronouncement about this point.)
Mr. M. H. Jackson Lipkin, for Carroll, pointed out that, immediately such vehicles were authorized, the seats could be taken out and the carrying capacity doubled. An application could then be made for larger vehicles which the Authority would be bound to grant. Further, if Bowles were asked at any time to go outside the terms of the licence. they had only to replace the seats and could go beyond their radius, carrying anything, quite legally. Referring in particular to a passage in the Deputy Authority's decision (" I have come to the conclusion that it is not in the interests of the public generally that I should grant licences in respect of unorthodox vehicles which have been introduced by the back stairs ") Sir Hubert said that the Deputy was "quite wrong" in this, the capital question in the case.
Referring to the evidence, Sir Hubert s said: "We do not think, in a case of this sort, that there is sufficient evidence, when one comes to quantify the amount of licensed tonnage which should be afforded. It is, of course, for the appellants themselves to decide how they can best approach the quite difficult matter of quantification. At any rate, they ought to state within limits the number of parcels they have to handle."
Directing that the case be remitted back to the Deputy Authority to consider the " unorthodox " evidence and grant vehicles commensurate with the amount of further evidence adduced, the Tribunal allowed the appeal.