When the Police Must Act
Page 72
Page 75
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HAULIERS who have been convicted for carrying stolen goods in vehicles should be opposed by the police when seeking the renewal or variation of their licences, thinks Mr. I. A. T. Hanlon, Northern Licensing Authority.
In two cases he has invoked Section 6 (2) (b) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, to inquire into the applicants' previous conduct as carriers of goods. In one, where the applicant had been convicted of receiving stolen metal and carrying it in a B-licensed vehicle, he refused the change of a special-A licence into a public A.
Why the police had never appeared before the Authority since the passing of the Act to prevent stolen goods being carried by licensed vehicles was beyond comprehension, said Mr. Hanlon. The question was important and, if necessary, the police should come forward and object to the granting of any sort of licence for the carriage of goods by a person with a criminal record whose conduct had involved the carriage of stolen goods on licensed vehicles.
Mr. Hanlon added that if a man applied for a hackney carriage or beer licence and had a criminal record, the police were usually active in objecting, but they had never taken steps in the past to see that such-a person had his previous conduct taken into account when seeking a licence for a goods vehicle. "
He hoped they would do so in future,. but the question of the police acting as objectors raises a number of questions which ought to be clarified.
Are other offences, such as drunken driving, also to be taken into consideration? What would be the position of the holder of a licence where a driver, without his knowledge, was involved in criminal activities with the vehicle?
If this section of the Act were intended to apply to breaches of the law other than those connected with licensing, why have the Authorities been so long in pointing out to the police their duties in this connection?
So far as can be ascertained, the police have never appeared in the role of objectors to the grant of a goods licence.
More Liaison Between Areas Required
E5ROM time to time there have been I complaints from hauliers that applications in a particular Traffic Area which are likely to affect operators in other Areas are not sufficiently publieized.
A particularly glaring case came to light in the Northern Area when Messrs. B. P. Quinn and I. E. Hall sought variations of a B licence, for caravan-towing.
1538 granted by the Northern Licensing Authority in 1959 with a base at Darlington.
There were strong objections by a number of Yorkshire-based hauliers to the variation application, which was for additional vehicles, including articulated outfits, both for carrying and towing caravans.
It was disclosed that the original application made by Mr. Quinn, to operate two Land-Rovers from Darlington, was made while he was living in Huddersfield, and the objectors contended that because they did not know of the application, which was published only in the Northern issue of Applications and Decisions, they were unable to oppose it.
Dealing with this specific question, Mr. Hanlon said there were means of watching the official publications. Certain associations obtained copies from all the Traffic Areas. In addition, every Licensing Authority's office had copies, and interested persons could find out what was happening anywhere in the country.
The significant feature of this case was that both applicants were previously employed as drivers by Yorkshire caravan hauliers, and a large proportion of the traffic on which the evidence was based emanated from Yorkshire.
Although the law was complied with by publication in the Northern Applications and Decisions, the result was to enable newcomers to set up in direct competition with their previous employers without giving them any opportunity of objecting.
Partial Grant
Despite these protests, Mr. Hanlon granted part of the variation application, concerning an articulated vehicle to carry outsize caravans, on the evidence of a Hull manufacturing company.
There were repercussions in the Yorkshire Traffic Area at Bridlington when Maj. F. S. Eastwood, the Licensing Authority, was told by objectors to a Hull caravan application of incursions into that area by the Darlington-based Quinn and Hall vehicles.
Mr. R. E. Paterson, for ffie objectors, recounting the history of the. Northern licence, suggested that a grant should not have been made without reference to the Yorkshire Area.
Maj. Eastwood's not unnatural reaction was surprise that he had not been consulted. He proposed to communicate With Mr. Hanlon.
Whilst consultation between Authorities in cases affecting more than one Area is a safeguard, justice would be better served if there were publication of applications in every Area likely to be affected.
This might be either at the time an application is made or, if the implications do not come to light until the actual
inquiry, this should be adjourned. Wide publication could then be made and objectors could appear at the resumed• hearing.
Larger haulage concerns can afford to employ someone to check all applications and deal with licensing matters generally. Smaller operators have neither the time nor the money to indulge in regular research of this sort, particularly if they live at a distance from an Area office. Nor could busy secretaries of the Road Haulage Association be expected to cover the whole ground on behalf of their numerous members.
Is an A Lwenee Worth Only a B ?
BECAUSE there is little or no common policy among Authorities with regard to their treatment of normal user, and because of the publicity given to grants which appear restrictive, many hauliers believe that their A licences are now little better than limited B licences.
I believe that whatever normal user a haulier has declared, he is entitled to carry anything which is offered anywhere, provided that it does not become regular traffic amounting to a large percentage of normal work.
I am supported by a decision of Mr. H. J. Thom, South Eastern Licensing Authority. The application concerned was by Messrs. F: W. Tippen and Sons, and was heard at Maidstone in October, 1959. The firm sought the transfer of six vehicles from special-A to public A licence.
Tippen, after agreement at road and rail negotiating committee, sought a normal user of "goods, England and Wales." Mr. Thom said that the Transport Tribunal's statements regarding the use of "genera! goods, Great Britain" must also apply to "general goods" or " goods, England and Wales," • if only because there must be some definition of the main traffic carried.
In this case • the figures obviously showed that the main traffic outwards was agricultural produce and requisites, amounting to £6,623 in the year, as against £3,165 for the next Major item, miscellaneous goods. The main traffic amounted to 55 per cent, of that outwards.
Mr. Thom suggested a normal user of "goods, mainly agricultural produce and requisites, England and Wales." This was how he tried to deal with the question of normal user. It did not prevent the carriage of any other goods in England and Wales, provided that the major traffic did not become the minor Proportion. If that were not acceptable, he added,
he would not stand in the way of the applicants' defining all that they did. He would then have to define, every article mentioled in the figures, and he would prescib the exact districts for each one. That syluld be nonsense, but he was prepared to do it.
After a submission on behalf of the applicarts that because the balance was so sma0 a change of 10.5 per cent, in the traffic would put the agricultural work in the minority, Mr. Thom said that the main traffic was identifiable as distinct from a• large number of Miscellaneous items.
He was then asked if the normal user would be infringed if the value of wood: shavings traffic went up from £500 to £1,000. At £500 it was less tan the value of agricUltural work. Mr. Thom replied that this would be permissible if the agricultural items mentioned in the normal user remained the main traffic (even if they decreased to 30-40 per cent, of the total) provided that no other individual item wa greater. .
If an difficulty arose in the future, his remarksl could be quoted. The normal user ref rred to the major Item of haulage—the main traffie--anci there was complete freedom to do anything else in England and Wales if no particular item • exceeded the agricultural work. If it did, then a variation must be s ught.
The Value of L tters as Evidence
00MPLAINTS by British Railways, in their self-appointe position as watchdogs, that there is a tendency towards accepting custom rs' letters as proof of need despite t e Tribunal's pronouncements that thefr have little value may have some justification.
Accepting the proposition that it is next to impossible to obtain witnesses from undertakings such as Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd., and Dorman Long, Ltd., Mr. G. W. Duncan, Northern Deputy Licensing Authority, granted additional A-licensed vehicles to Siddle C. Cook, Ltd., and H. L. Walker, Ltd., solely on documentary evidence of the boom in steel traffic from Tees-side.
° On the other hand, Mr. Hanlon apparently takes a different view, for shortly afterwards he refused a similar application by Spinks Transport Services, Ltd., oti the ground that letters were insufficient evidence,
Similarly, Mr. A. H. Jolliffe, North Western Deputy Licensing Authority. refused,nia application by I. Williamson (Haulage Contractors), Ltd., for an additional vehicle to cover increased work for H. FT. Heinz and Co., Ltd., saving that letters dealing with an issue of need were not in themselves stifficient, and there would be • no gr nt without witnesse Mr. olliffe added that, in his view letters ealing with statem nts of fact, l; as distisict from questions cf need, were cogent evidence.
The British Transport Commission are putting the issue to the test and have appealed against the Cook decision_
5.
ssociation are concerned at the growth bad debts during recent months, the concerns responsible being mainly mushroom clearing houses who depart overnight after a brief but hectic career owing money to all and sundry. The recovery of money owing to members has become big business, and five cases against clearing-hmkses are pending at the ii i oment.
Indiscriminate use of the names of harmers, wha are said to have been unable to provide vehicles for hire, by applicants seeking to bolster their evidence of need is causing concern to Yorkshire hauliers. The Authority is to be asked to allow a locus to any operator whose name is mentioned, if he is not an objector, so that unfounded allegations can he rebutted.
figures Ought to e Exchanged
1 THE vexed question of whether
• I. objectors should he furnished with an applicant's figures before the date of inquiry, to enable them to present a proper case, was raised before Mr. Jolliffe at Manchester.
H. Nuttall and Sons, Ltd., Heywood, were seeking a vehicle to replace a trailer, and on the production of a large bundle of figures, Mr, G. H. P. Beames, for the Commission, submitted that it was ukireasonable to inundate objectors with figures and schedules at the last minute.
He added that after a preview of the fi res his clients could decide whether or not to call evidence, and might well withdraw. Mr. Joffiffe said that the figures were dated two months previously, and Mr. Beames' was a reasonable complaint. An exchange of documents should be made before the hearing wheneirer possible.
1ihould • Unopposed uses Be Heard ? THERE have been complaints I recently that Mr. W. P. James, West Midland Licensing Authority, has been causing delays in dealing with applications by bringing unopposed cases to inquiry. Regular attenders of hearings in the est Midlands will be well aware that t s is ill-informed criticism. There is always a good reason if an applicant is brought to public inquiry. Many small hauliers have good reason t be grateful to Mr. James, for many the inquiries are held in their ititterests. For instance, agreement at road aksd rail negotiating committee level is nIot always in the best interest of the sptall operator, particularly when there is a question concerning normal user.
A few minutes spent before the uthority, during which he ascertains
hether the agreement is properly understood, may avoid much future trouble. Another point to bear in mind is that
objections are often withdrawn at the last minute when it is too late to delete cases from the list.
The Authority's practice of hearing all unopposed cases first may result in delays for customer-witnesses in opposed eases, but to adopt the opposite procedure would mean that many unopposed cases would have to wait all day.
Moreover, the convenience of witnesSes always receives, consideration, and applicants are often allowed to dispose of this type of evidence before giving their own. There is no reason to suppose that there is any undue delay before cases are brought to inquiry, Many applications which take a lengthy period to decide are the fault of the Applicant when adjournments are made because of faulty preparation.
An example of Mr. James' procedure was a public inquiry at Birmingham. The unopposed cases included a contract-A licence application which the Authority was concerned to have amended to ensure the haulier guaranteed monthly earnings.
There was also a short-term application by Atlas Express (Birmingham), Ltd., for three additional vehicles, a take-over application by a widow whose husband had not operated under his licences far some time, and a .case in which a. public warning was given about irregular operation.
It is in the haulier's own interest that all matters, apart from mere routine, should be aired publicly. Despite the suggestions that hearing unopposed applications in public discloses an excess_ of zeal, general opinion among -those who visit the various Areas is that the West Midland Area is at least equal to any other in the speed and efficiency with which cases are dealt.
The number of unopposed cases dealt with in public is very small. compared with those granted in chambers.
PASSENGER
A Waste of Public Money
THispectacle of the railways battling i! the traffic courts with bus companies in which the Commission have substantial shareholdings suggests a lack of co-operation and a waste of public money.
A particular instance was the Midland "Red" application to run express bus services along M1 from Coventry to 1..ondon, and increase the frequencies on those already granted from Birmingham to London.
The bus company were accused by their rail colleagues of taking advantage of difficulties caused by " modernization " to try to establish new services.
Counsel were engaged by both sides, and the hearing took up six days of the West Midland Traffic Commissioners' time.
It is unlikely that a private company with rail and bus interests would tolerate a similar situation, or that their shareholders would not protest against the waste of company funds.