TRIBUNAL DECISIONS 0 3NG-STEEL APPEALS
Page 32
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
QUPPORT for Dorman Long's Cleveland steel transport scheme, and for the mixed P.--7 carriage of long and short steel rather than exclusive long-steel transport by specialists; rejection of an immediate need for more steel-hauling vehicles but acceptance of substitution applications; and rejection of Section 178 suspension as a penalty for "overweight" trailer operation—these are among the major points in written decisions by the Transport Tribunal on appeals arising out of the long-steel inquiry held by the Northern Licensing Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, towards the end of last year.
Of four appeals by Econofreight Transport Ltd., three were allowed, and two appeals by its subsidiary, D. Tarren Ltd., were allowed; Arthur Sanderson (Great Broughton) Ltd. was successful in four out of five of its appeals; but both of the additional-vehicle appeals by H. L. Walker Ltd. were dismissed. Respondents were British Railways Board and others.
Econotreight and Tarren Win Five out of Six
THE object of the applications by Econofreight Transport Ltd. and D. Tarren Ltd., which were heard last September, was to enable the appellants to participate in a scheme for the haulage of steel from the Cleveland works of Dorman Long (Steel) Ltd. The purpose was to reduce delays to vehicles at the Dorman Long works; the scheme was already in operation for steel in short lengths and it was desired to extend it to steel in long lengths of more than 30 ft.
At the first day's hearing, on September 9, 1963, the L.A. was informed that the appellants had been using five artics with overweight trailers, and that these trailers were of the extendible type and had been used for the carriage of long steel. It was stated then that the object of two applications for the substitution of trailers was to regularize the position.
As a result of this disclosure, the L.A. informed the appellants that he had under consideration the question of revoking or suspending the A licences under Section 178 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, and when the hearing of two variation applications to add four artics was heard. it was combined with a public inquiry under Section 178. In its judgment the Transport Tribunal stated that this procedure followed by the L.A. was a convenient course to take and did not result in any detriment to the appellants, as the objectors, very properly, did not address the L.A. on the question of revocation or suspension.
At a resumed hearing, the L.A. suspended five vehicles for four months; he was not so much troubled by the weight of the trailers as by the fact that they had been used for the carriage of longlength steel. The L.A. stated that in none of the applications relating to the vehicles specified in the licence did either of the appellants describe any of the artics as specially constructed for the carriage of indivisible loads of exceptional length; neither did they declare the class or description of goods to be carried as normally indivisible loads of exceptional length.
The Tribunal stated that no point regarding the power of the L.A. to suspend vehicles in such circumstances was taken either before him or in the notice of appeal to the Tribunal. But at the hearing before the Tribunal, it was argued on behalf of the appellants that the L.A.'s letters of October 9, 1963 did not disclose any ground upon which action could lawfully he taken under Section 178. As this was a point which went to the jurisdiction of the L.A. and, in turn, to that of the Tribunal, it was their duty to consider it, notwithstanding that it was not taken before the L.A. or in the notice of appeal, for jurisdiction could not be conferred by consent.
The use of trailers exceeding in weight those authorized was not, it seemed to the Tribunal, a non-fulfilment of a statement of intention or expectation made or procured to be made by the holder of the licence for the purposes of his application for the licence.
In the Tribunal's view it was incorrect of the L.A. to attempt to apply the provisions of Section 178 of the Act to a case in which proceedings could be taken under Section 164(2), and for this reason the appeals against the suspensions were allowed.
The appeal by Econofreight against the L.A.'s refusal to add two artics of 16+ tons was allowed. At the hearing before the Tribunal the declaration of normal user was further amended by the appellants to "Steel, including long lengths, for Dorman Long (Steel) Ltd., within one mile of the Dorman Long Cleveland works for the purposes of weighing ". The respondents did not consider that their interests would be prejudiced by the licensing of vehicles with such a restricted normal user, and it appeared to the Tribunal that in that form the application was unexceptionable.
The appeal by Econofreight against the L.A.'s refusal to substitute four articulated trailers of 17 tons for four trailers of 10 tons 17 cwt. was allowed and the appeal by D. Tarren Ltd. against the L.A.'s refusal to substitute one articulated trailer of 4 tons 5 cwt. for a trailer of 3 tons 8 cwt. was also allowed.
Although it was stated that these applications were made in order to regularize the position with regard to unladen weights, the Tribunal stated that the important feature of the applications was not so much the weights of the trailers as the fact that their overall lengths would exceed 35 ft., so that they would be capable of carrying long-length
steel. The Tribunal was of the opinion that it would be proper to facilitate the operation of the Cleveland works scheme by enabling the appellants to carry longlength steel when so required.
In dismissing the appeal by Econofreight against the L.A.'s refusal to grant two additional vehicles (artics of 18 tons) the Tribunal agreed with the L.A.'s view that a scheme devised to make a more economic use of transport ought not to require the licensing of additional vehicles.
The Tribunal found the evidence of additional overall need to be insufficient and commented that there would have to be very special reasons to justify the licensing of additional vehicles.
Walker Appeals Fail • I N June, 1963, H. L. Walker Ltd., of Thornaby-on-Tees, applied for an A-licence variation by the addition of three low-loader trailers of about 4 tons each to be operated with tractors at more than 35 ft. overall. The application was later amended from low-loaders to long lengths. In July, 1963, the appellants applied for a further variation by the addition of two males of about 9 tons each, exceeding 35 ft. Both applications were refused by the Northern L.A.
As in the case of Econofreight, Tarren and Sanderson, the object was to participate in the Dorman Long steel scheme. Apart from a vehicle Walker operates under a Contract A licence, the company has no vehicles suitable for carrying steel in long lengths and in the past has had to employ sub-contractors to carry such traffic. It was submitted that if Walker was to participate in the Dorman Long scheme, then the company would have to use vehicles of its own.
The Tribunal, in its judgment, stated that while it must take into consideration the interests of those of the respondents who carried long-length steel by road, it did not feel justified in allowing those interests to override the wishes of Dorman Long to have all the steel produced at the Cleveland works carried by the hauliers participating in their scheme. "We are satisfied that the operation of the scheme would be hampered if the long lengths of steel had to be segregated from the short lengths and specialist hauliers called in to carry the long
lengths. . . In these days we cannot regard the carriage by road of steel over 30 ft. in length, from plants such as the Cleveland works, that turn out such lengths in the normal course of business, as still a matter for specialists."
However, it seemed that a scheme devised to make a more economic use of transport ought not to require the licensing of additional vehicles. The Tribunal would have been disposed to grant a substitution application (of long trailers for normal ones) but the case had not been put forward in that way.
Sanderson Succeeds A N appeal by Arthur Sanderson (Great
Broughton) Ltd. against the L.A.'s decision to suspend two artics for a period of three months because of the illegal use of overweight trailers, was allowed by the Tribunal. The circumstances were similar to the appeal by Econofreight Transport Ltd. and D. Tarren Ltd., and the Tribunal, in its judgment, gave similar reasons.
Of four appeals by Sanderson relating to variations of A licences three were allowed and one dismissed. The Tribunal stated that one appeal attracted only one objection, which later was withdrawn; two appeals were unopposed before the Tribunal and although there were three respondents to the fourth appeal only one, British Railways Board, appeared.
The appeal that was dismissed related to an application for the addition of two attics of about 8f tons each. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the evidence in support of this application was extremely thin. The three successful appeals related to " substitution " variations, which would enable the applicant to carry long-length steel. The Tribunal stated that in its opinion, the fears of the British Railways Board (here, as in the Walker and Econofreight appeals) regarding the effect of enabling the appellants to carry long lengths of steel were unjustified. "There is clearly room for both rail and road transport for the carriage of long lengths." If some of Dorman Long's customers asked for their goods to he sent by road, it was not reasonable to expect the company to insist on rail transport.
The Tribunal's opinion was that the appellants had made out a good case in respect of three trailers to exceed 35 ft. overall. The L.A. had refused these applications for two reasons: first, in his view no evidence had been called sufficient to make out a case for an increase in licensed tonnage; second, he had taken into account the previous conduct of the appellants in the capacity of a carrier of goods in the matter of using overweight vehicles and had stated that this conduct could only be absolved by the appellants operating within the terms of their licence as to the declared weight of their vehicles for a minimum period of three months.
The L.A.'s decision was dated March 17 this year, so that the absolution period of three months had now expired and it was only necessary for the Tribunal to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to make out a case for an increase in licensed tonnage. It was of the opinion that there was just sufficent evidence to warrant the granting of the " substitution " applications_
London Hauliers Fined
THE transport manager of a St. Pancras, London, haulage company was unable to cope with all the work at the beginning of this year and he was a sick man, submitted Mr. G. Ellenbogen, defending the company at Clerkenwell Magistrates' Court on Wednesday. A. J. Salter and Co. Ltd. pleaded guilty to 28 summonses alleging that goods for hire or reward were carried in B-licensed vehicles not in accordance with the licence conditions.
Prosecuting counsel Mr. P. Purnell said that the company's manager had agreed that the conditions of the licences had not been adhered to. The manager had said there was a complex condition on the licence which made it rather difficult when various types of work were called for.
Mr. Ellenbogen pleaded that the company had had no previous convictions of this kind.
The company was fined 30s. on each summons, with 15 gns. costs on one.
Eight Tippers Granted
THE rapid expansion of agricultural
merchants, Derek B. Orme, led to thc formation of two new limited companies on May 1, each with the same directors: D. B. Orme (Transport) Ltd., formed for the purpose of operating solely as hauliers, and D. B. Orme Ltd., to continue the agricultural business.
This was said when D. B. Orme (Transport) Ltd., of Whitchough. Chinley, applied on Tuesday to the North Western deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. A. H. iolliffe, at Macclesfield, for 11 vehicles including one articulated tipper) to operate on A licence. But when this was amended by the applicants to eight tippers (including one articulated tractor and a tipper trailer) on A licence, and retaining three flat vehicles on B licence (which were to have been surrendered with six others on B and five on A licences), British Road Services withdrew their objection.
The application was granted, as amended.