1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164 
For 'need' read 'support'
Page 99
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A THREE-HOUR public inquiry covering three applications on June 17 was sufficient for the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, Mr D. I. R. Muir, to demonstrate admirably how Section 64 of the Transport Act 1968 operates. If the public inquiry had been staged and presented by a company of professional players, the messages it delivered could not have been clearer. But these were actual applications involving real people in real circumstances.
In the first case, Mr J. L. Davis was applying for two vehicles, one to be acquired, on an operator's licence. Mr Davis represented himself and was questioned by the LA. Mr Muir first ascertained that the applicant was a fit person to hold an operator's licence. Asked how he had spent the years prior to making an application, Mr Davis replied that at the time of the application he was working as a motor mechanic. He had previously spent some considerable time driving commercial vehicles and it was obvious from the way he conducted himself that this applicant had received a good commercial education.
Maintenance The LA turned his attention to the maintenance facilities which were to be provided, bearing in mind that Mr Davis was to be his own driver and would be restricted to a 60-hour week. It was unlikely that he would be in a position to provide direct labour for maintenance. Nor did it seem feasible that he would have plant and equipment for maintenance.
Mr Davis produced a letter stating that the vehicles would be maintained at University Commercials Ltd, Hayes, Middlesex. He pointed out to the LA that this company would supply the vehicles if the application was granted.
This highlights an important feature in applications. There are many occasions when applicants purchase the vehicles before the application. In this case, the LA had the assurance not only that the vehicles were to be properly serviced but was strengthened in the opinion that the applicant was a fit person, in that he had not acted prematurely.
Turning to financial resources, Mr Davis told the LA that his business would be started on £5000 capital provided by his father. The LA ascertained that, in addition, Mr Davis had £300 capital of his own.
At first sight, it might appear that there were sufficient financial resources available to support such a small application but the LA probed further. He asked whether the applicant had any customers. Letters of support were produced from a number of customers. Then he asked what the applicant expected the gross earning of a vehicle to be for a 60-hour week, and was told —£125.
Operators have come to believe that with the abolition of carriers' licences for vehicles not exceeding 16 tons gross that customer evidence is no longer required. This application clearly indicates that customer evidence is very much a factor in operators' licensing, not from the viewpoint of "proof of need", but as proof of continuing financial support. Similarly, whereas in the past applicants produced figures of actual earnings, they may now be asked to state what they expect to earn. Again this is used as evidence of continuing financial support.
The second application was on behalf of Speedfreight Ltd, of Ashford, Middlesex. The company is nine months old and has been operating two light vans; it is managed by a partnership. This application was for five vehicles, four of which had to be acquired.
As proof that the applicants were fit persons to hold an operator's licence, Mr Ralph Williams, solicitor, led evidence of their background. One of the partners had worked for two years as a transport manager dealing principally with traffic. The other was formerly an accountant with BEA. Documentary evidence produced in court all referred to the requirements of Section 64. There was a partnership agreement, a maintenance contract and a bank statement. There was also evidence led that the company would be engaged principally in the movement of air freight—a traffic with which one of the partners was completely conversant. This was some indication to the LA that the company was able to tackle the job it was setting out to do.
Support Once again letters of support were produced from customers. Customer witnesses were not called but the LA was obviously satisfied that there was sufficient financial support to justify a grant.
Another interesting feature in this application was that the company had been hiring its vehicles to Hallett, Silbermann Ltd, one of the big operators in the industry, and it was submitted in support of the application that this "Goliath" had assisted "David" by setting up a record system for him. The third case was very different from the previous two, but, nevertheless, highlighted other interesting features. This was the one in which the seven-vehicle fleet of Turkish Trading and Transport was increased to 47 tractive units and 107 trailers.
This fleet is serviced under contract at a private garage in East London. Now, while the LA's enforcement staff has the power to enter an operator's premises to inspect the maintenance facilities, he has no such power to do so at a private garage.
Nevertheless, the applicant, in this case,• invited the inspector to attend the garage when vehicles were being serviced. He also produced in court a letter from the garage stating that these vehicles which are engaged purely on Continental work will receive priority for servicing every time they return to England. This was a fact which was substantiated by the Ministry inspector after he had accepted the applicant's invitation.
Need Once again, there were letters of support from customers stating that they required the services of this company for specific tasks abroad. One letter was produced from the Ministry of Public Building and Works. In the past, Government departments have shown an understandable reluctance to provide evidence of need.
The major difference between this case and the previous two is that this was, in fact, preliminary "proof of need" because the application referred to vehicles to be acquired, all of which were in excess of 16 tons gross.
The application was, virtually, unopposed and the grant was made. It is worth noting that in the past the LA would not have made such a grant on the strength of customers' letters alone.
From these three cases, the outstanding feature is that proof of need still exists but in a different way. It can now be called proof of support and will relate to finance rather than traffic. For the moment, at least, LAs appear to be prepared to accept letters of support rather than personal appearances and there is every reason to suppose that they will continue to do so just so long as those who provide the letters continue to support the applicant after he has been granted the vehicles. Otherwise we could see a return to the days when queues of customers passed in front of the LA to state their intention to use the operator.