NEED WAS PROVED BUT WHERE DID IT GO?
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
essence of all successful haulage applications is conclusive proof of need. It matters not that there are no objectors; the LA must be completely satisfied that need exists. If there are objectors, they must satisfy the LA that they are able in every way to meet the need.
Proof of need is an extremely difficult condition to fulfil. LAs seldom if ever pay any attention to letters from intending customers; it is essential to produce customer witnesses in court. Proof must be built up over months to show that an unfulfilled need does exist. The fact that a haulier has carried a particular traffic does no more than prove that it is there to be carried by someone and it would be less than prudent to operate illegally to prove need.
The Transport Tribunal has already made its position clear by stating that it is not the function of a Licensing Authority to follow in the wake of a haulier and to license him for work which the LA finds he has been doing. But recent events prompt one to ask whether it is safe to assume that if a licence has been granted, the LA has been well satisfied with the evidence.
Vanishing need (1)
DURING the hearing of appeals No. DI 1 and D16, HE Transport (Maidstone) Ltd., there was taken into consideration a decision of the South Eastern deputy Licensing Authority on January 20, 1966. He had granted an A licence to the applicant for two vehicles conditioned "fruit and vegetables, tinned foodstuffs, marble and charcoal, all imported through Sheerness Harbour, all within 200 miles".
In his written decision he said that Sheerness was a rapidly expanding port and Citex (London) Ltd., as a shipping and forwarding agent required, he thought, an ever increasing amount of transport but had over and over again experienced a shortage. "They, along with others, are ready and anxious to employ the applicants and in so doing there is not a shred of evidence that any other haulier will be injuriously affected. There is abundant haulage work for all." There can be no doubt there was a proven need.
The expectation of traffic through Sheerness failed to materialize. There was no marble or charcoal to be carried by HB Transport and one of its customers proved to be a bad financial risk. Citex did not pass any work to HE Transport from December 14, 1965, until March 15, 1966. Yet the deputy LA had been satisfied that a need existed. Was the case prepared too far in advance so that the need which existed in October had disappeared by December? Did the customer witnesses overestimate their requirement? Certainly they satisfied the deputy LA that they were constantly short of suitable transport. No matter the reason, the deputy LA's utter conviction that a need existed on the evidence he heard proved false. Where did the need go?
Vanishing need (2)
THIS same question was asked recently by Miss E. Havers when she appeared before the Transport Tribunal for the respondent. The appeal was allowed in part and one very interesting point arose. T. A. Dixon Ltd., a house furnisher, is sometimes asked by customers purchasing new furniture if it will move existing furniture to the customers' new house. So often did this happen that the company advertised an offer to arrange furniture removals. This invitation brought over 30 inquiries in a short space of time. Each inquiry was passed to one or other of the established furniture removal operators in the area, but was met with the same reply: "Sorry, we cannot help".
This situation prompted the company to apply for a licence and it used as proof of need the 30-plus inquiries. "But", Miss Havers asked, "where did the customers go?" The work was obviously done by someone. A need existed but it was fulfilled. Presumably since the established furniture removers were unable to accept the traffic through T. A. Dixon Ltd., they were unable to accept it at all. How then was the need met? There are vehicles licensed "goods on tipping vehicles", or "general goods". The need could be met by either of these conditions. This was a case where there was proof of need before the application but it was met in some fashion and therefore the proof was out of date.
Vanishing need (3)
PROOF of need has a habit of getting out of date because it has to be compiled so far in advance of the application. It is required by applicant before a decision can be made on how many vehicles are required and what condition should be applied for. It is often Out of date before the case is heard or soon afterwards. Hence the reason for entries in As and Ds stating: "If granted the grant published in A and D No... . will not be uplifted".
One such case appeared on May 20, 1967, in the Scottish area A and D 685. Gordon B. Caldwell Ltd., of Wishaw, was applying to vary its A licence by adding two vehicles of 10 tons and if granted it would not uplift two vehicles of 9 tons published in A and D 646. The application was granted on October 15, 1966, and it had not been uplifted in May 1967. The condition attached to this licence was "roadbuilding, excavated and demolished materials within Lanarkshire to the extent of 60 per cent, balance cooker and component parts for Moffat Ltd., as required". The LA was obviously satisfied that a need existed in October. What then happened to it after the grant was made? It disappeared—the licences were never uplifted.
Was this a case of compiling proof so far ahead of the public inquiry that it was out of date at the time of the inquiry and the need had disappeared. If so, why proceed?
One must accept the fact that the need still existed, the applicant was unlikely to proceed with a costly application if this were not so. The LA was unlikely to make a grant unless he was absolutely convinced that the need existed. This being the case, you may now ask how the need was met.
Where, in fact, did the need go?