AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Tribunal Told Change of User was Involuntary

31st January 1958
Page 36
Page 36, 31st January 1958 — Tribunal Told Change of User was Involuntary
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?

APPEALING to the Transport Tribunal in London, on Tuesday. r. Hesketh, Ltd., Widnes, claimed that they 4/ad been compelled to change the normal user of an A-licensed vehicle in 1951, and should now be allowed to revert to the original licence conditions. They were contesting a decision by Mr. J. R. Lindsay, North Western Deputy Licensing Authority, who had refused to renew the licence.

Mr. E. A. Whitehead, for Hesketh's, ;aid the business was started in 1948, with a normal user "all classes a goods. Liverpool, London and Widnes and as required." In June, 1951, when there was the restriction on transport imposed by the 1947 Transport Act, the user was changed on renewal to all ICJ. goods as required."

Three years later. Messrs. J. A. Williams and Son bought the shares of fiesketh's, abandoned work for I.C.L. and began to operate the vehicle as one of their own fleet. In 1956, on applying for renewal, Hesketh's applied to go back to the 194S user, but this was refused.

Mr. Whitehead submitted that the • change in normal user had been caused in 1951 by the Transport Act, and was involuntary. The renewal application sought restoration to the pre-Act state.

In his decision, Mr. Lindsay had said better evidence of need was required, and the evidence and figures put in were vague and unsatisfactory (The Commercial Motor, September 20, 1957). Yet the figures were about as detailed as it would be possible for an applicant to supply.

Replying for British Railways, Mr. J. Edward Jones submitted that there had been a complete change of business and customer. The licence had been bought, and there was nothing more dangerous than that in the transport world. It was a voluntary abandonment.

Decision was reserved.

"BUS SUBSIDY CHEAPER THAN RUNNING TRAINS" TWO bus services operated by Hebble I Motor Services, Ltd., should not be withdrawn immediately because a British Transport Commission subsidy had ended. This was suggested on Tuesday at a meeting of the Yorkshire Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee, when it was decided to refer the matter to the Central Committee.

The subsidy began in 1955, when British Railways stopped running passenger trains on two branch lines. The B.T.C. started paying 2s. 7d. to the company for every 4d. revenue, which has cost them £7,793. When it was announced last month that the subsidy was being withdrawn, Hebble said they could not afford to continue catering for the former rail

passengers.

The Yorkshire Committee were told that the railway services Were losine £48,000 a year, so even if a heavy subsidy were paid to Hebble. the B.T,C, would be better off than when trains were run.

n2


comments powered by Disqus