Regulation 15 Used Too Much
Page 60
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
T"question whether a. haulier was entitled to apply for an extra vehicle to enable the maintenance programme for an ex-British Road Services fleet to be worked was argued before the North Western Deputy Licensing Authority last week. Jay-Pee (Transportation), Ltd., Warrington, sought an A licence for a vehicle of 71 tons unladen weight.
Mr. J. A. Dunkerley, for the applicants, said that they had 10 Aand special A-licence vehicles, eight vehicles on contract-A licence and one on B licence. Trunk services were run from the north-west to Scotland and South Wales. During the past year, Regulation 15 had been used for kubstitutions• on eight occasions and there had been 18 instances of vehicles being off the road for maintenance since January.
Of the earnings of £46,213 under A licence in the nine months ended September, 1956, £13,524 was for sub contracting. The Transport Tribunal, said Mr. Dunkerley, had stated that substantial hiring figures were sufficient to establish a prima facie case. if need had been, proved for an additional vehicle, there could be no objection to one required for a maintenance schedule.
Mr. R. A. Webb, for the British Transport Commission, submitted that as it was said that the vehicle, was wanted purely for maintenance requirements, emphasis on earnings was irrelevant. The Tribunal said in the Allison case that B.R.S. vehicles were disposed of in units and did not include any right to Maintenance vehicles.
The Authority stated that there had been excessive use of Regulation 15. He granted the use of an extra vehicle for general goods to Scotland, South Wales, Bristol and Northampton when another lorry was in the workshops. •