Transport Tribunal gives decision in writing
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The Transport Tribunal in London on Wednesday heard an appeal against the decision by the Northern LA, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, to grant an A variation licence for six artics to Siddle C. Cook. It will give its decision in writing.
Mr. R. M. York, for the appellants, G. Stiller (Transport) Ltd., said that when the respondents, Siddle C. Cook Ltd., submitted the original application the reference to the "normal user" was—as in Applications and Decisions 1089; this was a mistake on the part of the respondents as the "normal user" in fact appeared in A and D 1098.
The LA, said Mr. York, had granted this massive increase the weight of the six artics totalled 66 tons 15cwt) on the strength of written support alone from the Consett Iron Co. Ltd. There had been no personal representation at the inquiry and the sixth artic, described in the application as a tipper-platform, was not even mentioned in Consett's letter.
Mr. York said that when Consett Iron Co. had cut its rates by 10 per cent hauliers had ceased to carry for that firm because it was uneconomical. Consett then found it had a shortage of transport and raised the rates again. Six days later Siddle C. Cook submitted the application.
Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw. representing Siddle C. Cook, said Stiller had claimed that if the application were granted, transport in excess of requirements would be established. But the LA had local knowledge of his traffic. He knew how Siddle C. Cook operated and of the requirements of Consett Iron.
Consett had introduced a trailer scheme which was operated by it for Siddle C. Cook, said Mr. Campbell Wardlaw. There was an average of 22 trailers per day operated in the scheme and because of increased tonnage Consett needed 30 to 35 trailers per day. Siddle wonted the six artics on a wide "normal user" because it did not want these vehicles segregated from the Test of the 73strong fleet.