War Office Contract Holder Refused Licence
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THIS case could establish an I important principle for the protection of small coach operators called upon to tender for War Office contracts, said Mr. J. Evans, for Mr. M. A. Watson, Huntington, York, before the Yorkshire Traffic Commissioners at Leeds last week. He was objecting to an application by Mr. J. H. Thornes, Bubwith, for an express service from York to 41 " A " Vehicle Depot, 'Burn.
Mr. F. S. Marshall, for the applicant, said his tender for the service, which was let on yearly contract, had been accepted. He owned four coaches, and would be able to dovetail the work with a school contract between Barlow and Selby, starting on December I.
Cross-examined by Mr. Evans. Mr. Thornes said Bubwith was 14 miles from York, but a vehicle would be based there if the application were granted.
Mr. Watson said he held the licence for this service, which expired on November 30, and had never consented to surrender it.
In April, the number of passengers to the depot increased. After speaking by telephone to an Army officer at Harrogate about the provision of a further vehicle, and being given, an assurance that it would be a permanent service, he purchased another coach for £1,650, which, if he was not allowed to continue, would be redundant.
The same price had been tendered again this year, but Thornes' tender was lower. If the Commissioners were satisfied that it was an economic fare, he was prepared to do the work at the same figure.
Mr. Evans submitted that the War Department might be bound to accept the lowest tender hut, if so, it was a bad rule.
He would ask the Traffic Commissioners to say that it was right to compel the War Department to let the contract to the existing licence holder.
Mr. Marshall said that if Mr. Thornes' tender was not uneconomic a licence should be granted. To do otherwise would be interfering with the sanctity of contracts, if the offer to operate at Mr. Thornes' price were accepted, such offers would continue until it was uneconomic for everybody.
After a short adjournment to consider the appeal decision of A. Farrow and Sons v. N. and S. Coaches in October, 1953, the chairman, Maj. F. S. Eastwood, refused the application. No decision was made as to the price at which the service is now to run.
[In a recent appeal decision by Shamrock and Rambler Motor Coaches, Ltd. (The Commercial Motor, November 2), the Minister of Transport ruled that where a service, for which there was an admitted need, was to be provided under contract, and the sole question was which operator was to provide the service, the award of the contract was a material factor. Any claim put forward by the operator who got the contract must, be given substantial weight by the Commissioners.]