AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Why Licence Applications Fail

2nd November 1934
Page 35
Page 35, 2nd November 1934 — Why Licence Applications Fail
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?

CERTAIN applications for licences and appeals under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, .1933, are being prejudiced by faulty presentaton that shows a surprising lack of appreciation of the far-reaching nature of this measure. In some cases inefficient legal representation has been demonstrated, whilst in other instances the applicants have failed to produce adequate evidence to suppott their submissions.

On at least one occasion an applicant actually agreed to the conditions suggested by the Licens,• ing Authority for attachment to a B licence and later appealed against them. In such cases as these the applicants have only themselves to blame for any unsatisfactory decision that a Licensing. Authority may reach in the absence of . adequate or correct information. Road transport legislation is a highly coMplicated subject, consequently applicants and appellants who are not thoroughly conversant with if—and they are legion—should obtain expert advice and representation from a lawyer who specializes in it. It is clear that the Licensing Authorities are not attaching to testimonials written by customers of hauliers the importance that was anticipated. They desire, in addition, oral evidence by witnesses and precise data concerning the need for the services of the applicant.

There is a marked tendency for appeals to be regarded as re-hearings of the original applications, a matter to which the Appeal Tribunal has several times drawn attention. In cases of obviously faulty presentation of an application to the Licensing Authority, the applicant would be better advised to make a fresh application, or seek the 'variation of conditions, rather than to risk incurring considerable expense in an unsuccessful appeal, in which the admission of new evidence is strictly limited. If the second application be refused, the operator should, in his own interests, consider with particular care the possibilities of success before he lodges an appeal. We might add that the first seven appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal, in one instance with 21 costs.

Tags