Appeal Decisions En Masse
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Concessions to Coal Dealers.
GENU1NE coal dealers who cannot economically operate their motor vehicles without working for hire or reward should be allowed to do so to a
limited extent. This is the effect of the Appeal Tribunal's decision in the appeal of the Southern Railway Co. against the Metropolitan Licensing Authority's action in granting a B licence to Mr. George Lambert 16, Shere Road, Deptford.
Mr. Lambert is to be allowed to early certain goods for hire or reward from May 1 to September 30 each year, within a limited radius.
The appeal, which has been dismissed, was brought as a test case, to obtain the Tribunal's decision on certain principles folloWed by the Metropolitan Licensing Authority in dealing with applications for B licences by coal merchants and others who carry on seasonal businesses.
The Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest that a coal merchant, who is unable to discharge the burden of proof ordinarily required, should be allowed to use his own vehicle for hire or reward under a B licence. He must, however, prove:— (I) That his business is genuine; (2) that he requires to use his vehicle to carry goods for or in connection with that business, or that the goods could not .satisfactorily be transported by other means; (3) that his vehicle cannot, over the whole year, be economically operated unless it is used during the off season for transport for hire or
reward. A special condition should also be attached to the licence to prevent wasteful competition.
At present, the Tribunal is not prepared to extend this decision to cover cases of applicants for B licences who conduct some other class of seasonal business. No question arises in this case of long-distance haulage.
The Tribunal does not suggest that a person who starts a new business, such as a coal merchant, should be granted a B licence to subsidize it while he is building it up. The bona fides of the business must first be proved, and the proprietor must be able to maintain it similarly to other sound undertakings of the same class.
Statistics Required from Ballast Hauliers.
APPLICANTS for B licences, or variations, who rely partly upon evidence of gross receipts from transport for hire or reward, should present figures showing separately that revenue, says the Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the appeal of Mr. W. W. Drinkwater, 23, Goodson Road, London. N. W . 10. He appealed against the refusal of the Metropolitan Licensing Authority to authorize him
• to use six additional vehicles under. a B licence. Mr. Drinkwater is a sand and ballast merchant and haulier. Originally he B40 was authorized to use 25 vehicles, but, on renewal, applied for 19 machines, because. it appears, six of the 25 vehicles were unfit for service. Later, Mr. Drinkwater sought, in effect, the reinstatement of those vehicles.
During the proceedings it was alleged that Mr. Cyril Drinkwater, assistant manager of the appellant's business, made a false statement to a representative of the G.W.. L.M.S. and L.N.E. Railway companies to secure the withdrawal of the objections.
Mr. Drinkwater's representative at the appeal proceedings complained that Mr. Drinkwater had not been afforded an opportunity of explaining why, at certain times, Road Fund licences were not taken out for some of his vehicles, and that the Authority had been influenced by extraneous matters.
In the Tribunal's view, the real point at issue was whether the appellant proved the need for the additional vehicles for hire or reward.
Statistics showed that gross receipts and payments for hiring had increased in recent years, but, generally, it was impossible to distinguish receipts for work for hire or reward from revenue from the sale of sand and ballast. The Tribunal feels that some substantial part of the increase in payments for the hire of vehicles may be due to the fact that some of Mr.. Drinkwater's own machines were not in a Et condition.
The Tribunal points out that unless receipts from the sale of goods and for haulage work are shown separately, the Licensing Authority cannot properly comply with the provisions of the Act requiring that, on an application for a B licence or variation, he shall have regard to the extent to which the applicant proposes to operate for hire or reward.
The appeal was dismissed with 11 19s. 4d. costs.
Rail Services Adequate.
RAIL facilities for the transport of fruit from certain parts of Kent to London are adequate and suitable. This opinion is expressed by the Appeal
Tribunal in dismissing the appeal of Mr. H. C. Lewis, Elmhurst, Bates Hill, Ightham, against the refusal of the South-Eastern Licensing Authority to allow him to carry fruit to London under a B licence.
Originally, Mr. Lewis was an Alicence holder, but on entering the business of sand and ballast dealer, he took up a B licence.
Evidence was given of the late picking of fruit on certain occasions. Special consideration was given by the Tribunal to facilities for collection and delivery to and from railway stations, which are of importance in deciding whether services are suitable ofnot.
Costs of £.4 14s. were awarded to the railway company.
Return Loads Forbidden.
ADECISION which may be of farreaching importance to other hauliers was given in Edinburgh, on October 21, when the Appeal Tribunal sustained the appeals of the L.M.S. and L.N.E. Railway companies against the granting by the Southern Scotland Licensing Authority of a B licence to Mr. Arthur Sheville, 160, West Kirk Street, Airdrie, with permission to bring return loads of cloth, wire and pottery. from Leeds to Glasgow.
The railway companies maintained that Mr. ShevilIe's carrying of his own goods to England was being subsidized by the transport of return loads for hire or reward. It was also stated that. sentimental reasons had influenced the Authority's decision.
Mr. SheviLle's case was that he was merely applying for the renewal of a licence first granted to him in 1934.
The order of the Tribunal is not to be effective for 21 days, to allow Mr. Sheville to apply for a different type of licence. The tribunal will shortly issue detailed reasons for its decision.
Six Appeals Refused.
AT a sitting of the Appeal Tribunal in Edinburgh, on October 21, it was intimated that six appeals against the granting of certain licences had been refused with costs.
The appeals were all at the instance of Messrs. J. and W. Aitchison, Bank End Road, Dumbarton, and others, three being against decisions of the Southern Scotland Licensing Authority and three against decisions of the Northern Scotland Authority.
In the first case the respondent was Mr. J. T. Dowling, C.A., 216,, West George Street, Glasgow, liquidator of Scottish Express Deliveries, Ltd., who had been granted an A licence. The .other two Southern Scotland decisions under appeal concerned A licences granted to Mr. T. D. Galbraith, 87, St. Vincent Street, Glasgow, and Mr. W. H. Stewart, 156, St. Vincent Street, Glasgow. The remaining appeals concerned two applications for A licences by Mr. Galbraith and one by Mr. Archibald Ferrie, 212, West George Street, Glasgow.