AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

No Precedent on Linking

2nd September 1955
Page 32
Page 32, 2nd September 1955 — No Precedent on Linking
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?

Keywords : Business / Finance

THE refusal of the Minister of Transport to establish a principle on the question of different operators linking express services (Yorkshire Pool Services appeal decision, reported in The Commercial Motor last week) will be applauded by the majority of concerns engaged in this branch of road passenger transport. Indeed, the Minister went further by making it clear that he does not regard the decision in the Elliott case as a suitable precedent.

During the appeal hearing, the case of Elliott Bros. (Bournemouth), Ltd. (January, 1933), was invoked. In that instance., the Minister approved the through-running of a vehicle on a number of services, "provided that the vehicle remains under the control of the same operator." It was the fact that the linked services were all run by the same operator that caused him to reject this case as a precedent for similar facilities run by different operators.

In spite of Section 76 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which requires applicants for road service licences to supply particulars of any "agreement or arrangement, affecting in any material respect the provision within the area . . of facilities entered into by him with any other person," the linking of services by different operators would appear to be one way of avoiding the licensing system.

If, for example, a direct service from A to D were refused by a Licensing Authority on the ground that the existing facilities were adequate, then there would be nothing to prevent the unsuccessful applicant from securing a licence to run from A to B or C, where he could link up with another operator's service to D. • No doubt with this in mind, the Minister agreed with his inspector, Sir Robert H. Tolerton, that where an application is made for a licence in respect of a link service, it is desirable that this should be disclosed in the application. This will enable persons affected to object to the application and give to the Licensing Authority a true picture of the applicant's intentions.

This appeal decision is another example of the difference in approach to their respective subjects of the Minister and the Transport Tribunal. Had this been a goods-licensing case, yet another prece dent might have emerged. As it is, the usual Ministerial caution in avoiding the creation of precedents has been exercised—and this time to good effect.


comments powered by Disqus