Securicor Appeal Reasons
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE long-awaited reasons for allowing the appeal by Securicor, Ltd., were given by the Transport Tribunal last week. Securicor, who had applied to the Metropolitan Licensing Authority to operate 35 -armoured vehicles, had appealed against the 10-vehicle grant made to them last September, and the Tribunal, after the hearing in November, announced that they had allowed the appeal for reasons to be given later.
Armour Needed
The appellants' case, said the Tribunal in their written judgment, rested upon the assertion that, where cash had to be carried by road, it was desirable, for the better protection of the cash and of the persons in charge of it, that it should he carried in an armoured rather than in a
" soft-skinned " vehicle. This was "obviously Incontrovertible." Securicor's assertion that, during peak periods on Friday mornings, 33 vehicles would be required, had not been seriously challenged by the respondents, Security Express, Ltd., and the Tribunal were entirely satisfied that if Securicor were to be enabled to do with armoured vans that portion of their cash-in-transit work which they were currently doing in private cars, they would need at least as large an addition to their licence as they had sought.
To Much Work Dealing with the evidence of the objectors at the public inquiry, the Tribunal said that this supported Securicor's case. The objectors had conceded that the work should not be carried in any non-armoured vehicles, and had said that there was a very large unsatisfied demand for the carriage of cash in protected vehicles. They had further said that they themselves could not accept all the business offered to
them and were, in fact, applying for additions to their licences.
" in the face of this evidence, it was obviously impossible for Mr. Fay (for the respondents) to contend that the objection had been established." the judgment continued. It ended, "1n our view, once it became apparent that no one else could, at the moment, supply the appellants' customers with the sort of facilities which the appellants_ wish to be empowered to supply, their case was unanswerable."
(The Commercial Motor understands that a decision is to be taken this week by Security Express as to whether their appeal to the Court of Appeal, against the Tribunal's judgment, due to be heard in the autumn, will be pursued.)