C-hire Payments "Irregular": Three Extra Vehicles Sought
Page 66
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DEC1SION was reserved by the Yorkshire Deputy Licensing Authority last Friday after hearing a case in which allegations of irregularity had been made about the method by which customers paid the applicant for the use of vehicles under C-hiring margin.
Mr.. L. Roberts, Lockwood, Huddersfield, wished to add three vehicles totalling 12 tons unladen to his A licence. Mr. P. Kenny, for Mr. Roberts, said that the applicant had held an A licence for two vehicles since 1933, and had three vehicles under C hire to N. C. Ashton, Ltd., Huddersfield, since 1950.
A representative of N. C. Ashton, Ltd., said they were manufacturers of aluminium bronze alloys used in many important indi ries, and wished to discontinue C hiring because of a change in the nature of their work. Products were now being made for marketing throughout the country. Vehicles were travelling long distances and there were no return loads. •
It was desired to continue to use Mr. Roberts' set-vice because of the importance and value of the loads. British Road Services had been employed for some years but only on work in certain categories. Quick deliveries to the aircraft industry were vital.
B.R.S. took too long, alleged the witness, who cited eight days from Huddersfield to London as an example. Delivery by rail of raw material to Workington took 14 days, and there would be an extra cost of £6 a ton for packing if other operators were employed.
Mr. 1'. B. Atkinson, for the British Transport Commission, said that the Authority should consider the hiring arrangements between the applicant and
the Ashton concern. . Tt had been admitted that the same tonnage rates had been charged for both A-licence and C-hire vehicles. These were totalled monthly and deductions were made for drivers' wages and other expenses paid by the company, and the balance was paid to the applicant.
This was improper, said Mr. Atkinson, because Mr. Roberts was indirectly paying for the drivers himself. He had no moral right to an A licence if he was supplying a customer irregularly. The Authority was being asked to put three new A-licence vehicles on the road when need was established for traffic in only
one direction. Return loads would benefit the applicant, not the customers.
Mr. Kenny • submitted that the Authority must consider whether the hiring was on a lawful or unlawful basis and who was the master and who the servant. In this case it could be taken that the arrangement between Mr. Roberts and the company was merely a means for calculation of payment. The drivers were under the company's control.
The applicant had established a case of need which had not been rebutted by the objectors. An applicant was not normally required to prove need for return loads, said Mr. Kenny.
The Authority observed that the case was important and said that he wished to refer to the decision on the Allison appeal and the Coggins-Mcrsey Docks and Harbour Board case.