Contract Switch Granted Without Customer Witnesses
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A N application to vary an A licence
by substituting a heavier vehicle and converting a contract-A vehicle to open A licence was granted by the Metro, politan Licensing Authority, Mr. D. I. R. Muir, last week, despite the fact that no customer witnesses were present to support the application. Giving his decision, Mr. Muir said that if his attitude was regarded as a lenient one it was not to be taken as a precedent.
For the applicants, J. Coles and Son, Mr. J. B. Weir said that the contract-A vehicle was working for the General Electric Co. Ltd., and would join the 34 vehicles already operated on A licence. The General Electric Co. gave notice to the company in April that they would no longer require the contract vehicle with effect from June 30, and they asked the applicant to make arrangements to cancel operations from that date. The figures to be produced would show a dramatic increase in hiring charges.
The second vehicle involved in the application was an old petrol-engine Luton van which the applicant wanted to replace with a more modern dieselengine vehicle. The increase here was only 8 cwt.
Giving evidence, Mr. J. C. Coles, general manager of the applicant company, said that he was unable to persuade. any of his customers to come to court to give .evidence.
Mr. A. J. Wrottesley, appearing for British Railways (objecting) submitted that there were a number of gaps in the application which should be filled. One of the customers, G.E.C., was a household word. It seemed inconceivable that a firm of that size and status found itself unable to supply a witness. It was important to ascertain what the position was with regard to other hauliers such as,13.R.S. and the Railways.
Mr. G. Mercer, for British Road Services, submitted that no prima facie case had been made out.
Mr. Muir overruled this submission and evidence was given by B.R.S. and British Railways of work carried out by them for G.E.C. and other customers.
In a ffnal submission, Mr. Wrottesley said that he had always been told, whenever he had attempted to question an applicant about a contract customer, that the proper practice was to put the evidence direct to the customer.
Mr. Weir conceded that ideally a G.E.C. representative should have been present, but the application was bona fide and had a great deal of merit. He asked Mr. Muir not to. apply any criminal standards of proof to such a. simple case.
Granting the application, Mr. Muir said that the matter was very small. His only doubt in the case was whether it would be right to make a grant in the absence of all customer evidence except letters. It had generally speaking been his practice to insist that the other party to a contract should be present, mainly in order to satisfy himself that the other party was fully aware of what he would get under the changed arrangement when the contract disappeared.
He was satisfied in the present that G.E.C. were fully aware of the changed situation A grant could not damage the objectors.