Tribunal's Decision Flouted ?
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IN granting Stevenson Transport, Ltd., Liverpool, certain additional tonnage for maintenance purposes, Sir William Hart, North Western Deputy Licensing Authority, had flouted a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, said Mr. B. de H. Pereira, appealing on behalf of the railways against the Authority's decision.
Sir William Hart granted the company licences for three extra articulated vehicles and a tractor (281 tons). Part of the grant was on the ground of the need for vehicles for maintenance
purposes. The L.M.S. and L.N.E. Railway companies appealed against this decision.
During the hearing. Mr. Rowand IIarker, K.C., chairman of the Appeal Tribunal, remarked that Mr. W. Chamberlain, North Western Licensing Authority, and Sir William Hart apparently did not take the same point of view.
Mr. Pereira contended that the application was based upon a large inCrease in traffic for Unilever, Ltd., since March, 1985, when goods were transferred from rail to road. Such a change, he said, raised an acute. problem. As he saw the issue, a trader could freely exchange from one form of transport to another, provided that addi
tional vehicles were not required. If extra lorries were necessary, the original form of transport wouldhave to be proved to be unsuitable or inadequate, or both. Under the Act, the trader was not fettered to any great extent. ;Transport in each area, counsel continued, should be regulated by the Licensing Authority. The trader should try all the available facilities and, if they were insufficient or unsuitable, he should be allowed addl..,
• tional transport. • Mr. Pereira also held that any allegation of rate-cutting was an indication of excessive transport facilities.
Replying, Mr. Ian Macaulay submitted that the Tribunal's general attitude was that the small haulier requiring a vehicle to replace a machine undergoing overhaul should take advantage of the regulation by. which a temporary licence could be granted. The large operator, on the other hand, should be allowed a certain margin of tonnage for upkeep purposes.
In one instance, the railways were asking for tonnage equal to 71 per cent. of their service vehicles to be authorized for maintenance purposes, but were contending that a large haulier should not have one maintenance vehicle in a fleet of over 20 units. •
• Mr. Harker declared that there was no justification for saying that Stevenson Transport, Ltd., cut rates. The case, which opened in Liverpool last week, is being continued in Loi,idon this week.