A P PLICATIONS for late renewals of A licences are increasing in
Page 45
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
all traffic areas. Some of the licences have expired three or four months before application is submitted. The excuses are numerous and often unconvincing, varying from illness to misplaced renewal forms.
A similar careless attitude is often adopted towards the application form GYM. The normal-user conditions are automatically repeated from the expired . licence, accompanied by the thought: "A lot of fuss about nothing." Anyone who holds this belief is likely to suffer an unpleasant surprise.
Mr. Hubert Hull, president of the Transport Tribunal, has decidedly different views on the importance of normaluser conditions, especially on renewal, Referring to normal operations he recently remarked:— " This is a definite statement i n answer to question 7 of form GV1A. The question is divided into two parts: (a) class or description of goods to be carried—this does not contain the word ' normal' —and (b) districts in which or places between which the vehicles will normally be used—this contains the word 'normally.' It is on this statement that the proof of need is founded. It is very important, as it is a definite statement bound by Section 9(4) of the Transport Act 1953.
"If during the currency of the licence the operator changes his operations, even if he feels he has to change them, say, because his customer had gone into liquidation, then the operator places himself in peril. He has obtained the licence on proof of need (not rebutted) for transport for certain goods and districts, and if he changes this he should inform the Licencing Authority. He should surrender his licence and re-apply, and prove need for the new operations. If not, he will be subject to proof on renewal."
BEFORE considering the serious implications of Mr. Hull's remarks, one should understand thoroughly the meaning of normal user to an A-licensee. • "Normal operations," as applied to A licences, were first mentioned in Section 5 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. Under sub-section 1(c) an .applicant must specify the facilities he intends to provide, including the district within which, or the places between which, he intends normally to use the authorized vehicles when carrying for hire or reward.
Forms GVI A and 0V6, which relate to applications for A licences, were created by statute and drafted in the Goods Vehicles (Licences and Prohibitions) Regulations, 1952. They require information to be given as laid down under Section 5(I)(c) of the 1931 Act.
Under Section • 9(4) of the 1953 Act, the Licensing Authority's powers under Section 13 of the 1933 Act, relating to suspension or revocation of a licence, are enlarged. A licence may be suspended or revoked if the holder made or procured to be made for the purposes of his application, any statement of fact which (whether to his knowledge or not) was false, or any statement of intention or expectation which has not been fulfilled. A statement of fact does not include a statement or evidence given by a customer in support a the application, but it may be either oral or written. The completion of the .application form in itself constitutes a statement.
In law, then, a statement of normal operations must be made, and if subsequently it is found to be incorrect, the applicant may suffer penalties.
An application for an A licence or variation is usually granted only on proof of need, which has not been rebutted. This demand must be for the facilities set out in the application. It cannot be for unspecified operations all Over the country, otherwise a Licening Authority would be Unable to assess the transport requirements in his particular area.
Consequently, "general goods, Great Britain," is frequently rejected as a normal user. The Authority must be told what the applicant intends to carry on outward and return journeys, and for whom. The idea that an Alicensee can take anything anywhere is a fallacy.
AS in the case of other aspects of licensing, normal user is entrenched in a number of appeal decisions. The former Appeal Tribunal recognized the importance of the declaration of normal operations. Three of their decisions —O'Sullivan and G.W. Railway Co., Barnett Joel, Ltd., and L.N.E. Railway Co., and L.M.S. and L.N.E. Railway Companies and Stuart—bore on a change of districts during the currency of a licence.
The Tribunal said that if an A-licensee normally used his vehicles within districts or between places other than those stated when he originally applied for the expiring licence, or other than those within or between which he normally operated his vehicles at or about the time of his application for the expiring licence, and if in seeking a new licence he stated, or it was proved; that he intended normally to use his vehicles in those other districts, there was a material change in the circumstances. The Licensing Authority should refuse a new licence unless the applicant proved a prima facie case, which was not rebutted, that he needed normally to use his vehicles in the new places.
In the case of the Four Amalgamated Railway Companies and Bouts Tillotson, the Appeal Tribunal pointed out that one of the principles to be considered by the Licensing Authorities in dealing with renewals of A licences was whether there had been any material change in the circumstances, including normal operations, of the particular haulage business.
In another appeal, the Tribunal obtained from the Licensing Authority certain information about pre-war applications and statements of normal operations. They compared these with the particulars in the application which was the subject of the appeal. Material difference was found between the. facilities for which the licences were previously granted and those which the applicant sought to provide. The Tribunal said that the onus was on the licence holder to justify a change when he applied for a new licence.
Fr HE present Transport Tribunal have also considered the importance of an applicant's declaration of normal operations and his actual activities. It has been held that evidence of need arising from an unauthorized change of normal user does not enable an applicant to secure the Licensing Authority's discretion in his favour (William Bros. and the British Transport Commission).
Disagreement on Section 9(4)
Conclusions reached by the Licensing Authority on Section 9(4) of the 1953 Act were disputed by the Transport Tribunal in the appeal A. H. Rumble and Sons and British Transport Commission and others. The Authority had said that "Section 9(4) . . . was not intended to be used to interfere with the freedom which a public carrier had always enjoyed under his licence" and "the section was not enacted to nuke possible or necessary the detailed definition under normal user of all that an applicant' for an A licence intended or expected to do during the currency of his licence."
Holding that those views were wrong, the Tribunal said: "On the proper construction of Section 9(4 it is clear that any statement of fact or of intention or expectation made for the purpose of his application by an applicant for an A or B licence, or for variation of it, which proves to be false or is not fulfilled, may be treated by the Licensing Authority as a breach of a condition, and empowers him, if he thinks fit, to revoke or suspend the licence granted."
Another disagreement between the Tribunal and a Licensing Authority occurred in a case of Scottish Central Carting Co., Ltd., and British Transport Corn-mission. The Tribunal decided that the Authority was wrong in his view that he had no power to grant an additional vehicle on A • licence with a normal user different from that declared in the original application.
Bound by Declaration
These, then, are the authorities for requiring an applicant for an A licence to say what he intends normally to do. He is bound by that declaration and if he wishes to make a material change during the currency of his licence, he must surrender it and apply again, proving need for the new operations. His declaration for existing vehicles will bind him when he seeks any variation.
IF appeal decisions on normal user are to be strictly applied by the Licensing Authorities, A licences will have little greater value than B licences. Normal user has become a condition of an A licence. This state of affairs was never intended by Parliament and is in complete contradiction to the spirit of the 1933 Act.
It must also be remembered that a renewal of an A licence is in fact an application for a new licence, and every five years the Licensing Authority is empowered to review the position.
H12 • What will be the outcome of this gradual eneroachmeni on the freedom of the A-licensee by the Tribunal? Only the British Transport Commission are likely to be pleased by it, The Licensing Authorities will certainly not like it they envisage more applications and objections, and extra work. Hauliers have not yet realized the dangers.
It is inconceivable that the purchaser of a special A licence should be penalized or obstructed on his first .application for a renewal. Sooner or later the Minister oi Transport must give directions to the Licensing Authorities on this point.
The buyer of a special A licence did not buy goodwill. All he acquired was a vehicle with a licence, the normal user of which was "general goods Great Britain when he began to operate. It is only just that he should be entitled to a renewal.
A special-A-licence holder will, however, have to justify the work he has already done, as particularized by the normal operations detailed in his renewal form. He should be allowed elasticity as to the districts from which he normally works, but he will have to specify the classes of goods he has been carrying and intends to haul in future. This will be difficult if he has been working for a clearing house. and he may have to specify in his normal user the clearing house and the district within which he has normally operated.
If his renewal is opposed he will have to call customer witnesses, and if the objectors wish to be awkward—a favourite pastime of the railways—they can insist on a witness to justify each class of goods.
What will B.R.S. Do?
Having sold vehicles for cash with special A licences, it is incredible that British Road Services should consider objecting to every renewal. They may, however. suggest that they wish to ascertain who are their competitors for a particular customer, although they probably know.
If the Commission want to object to the buyers of their units, the dirty work should be left to the railwa)s. I have no doubt that they will try to pin down the activities of special-A-licensees, find out their principal customers, insist on maximum proof by witnesses, and not letters, and subsequently pass on the information to B.R.S.
SIMILARLY, the B.T.C. will have to come out into the open and justify the renewal of their A licences. Will B.R.S. call customer witnesses to support their normal users, or will they attempt to obtain renewals for " general goods. Great Britain -? They will, no doubt, find objectors to their applications, but surely not British Railways.
The position of ,the railways with their cartage vehicles may be interesting. They may find objections from hauliers. alleging that the railways have been engaged in general haulage by using their collection and delivery vehicles to carry goods from A to B. when the goods were not brought to A by the railway system.
Unless the B.T.C. regard special-A renewals as deserving sympathetic treatment, the Licensing Authorities have an extremely busy time ahead of them. Until now, an unopposed renewal of an A licence, unless greatly overdue, has been granted without question. I believe, however, that the Commission may, by means of objections, insist on a stricter proof of need on renewal in cases where they are interested in an applicant's activities.
In The Commercial Moior on December 6, 1957, suggested that licensing was losing its teeth. It is now being offered some false teeth, which may or may not suit the Licensing Authorities. Perhaps they would prefer to see the Allison decision reversed or modified, and not the screw tightened after the licence has been granted.