"Contract Conversions Bad for Industry"
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
JT could not be good for the haulage industry if contract-A licences were allowed to be converted into A licences so easily, stated Mr. J. R. Lindsay, North Western Deputy Licensing Authority, at Liverpool, . last week.
He was challenging the interpretation of the Transport Tribunal's decision in the Allison case put forward by Mr. J. A. Dunkerley, representing Mr. J. R. Entwistle, Wigan, who sought an A licence for five additional vehicles totalling 20.1 tons unladen.
Mr. Lindsay said that contract-A licences were granted for specific work to be performed. The current tendency was to extend that work to cover return loads to justify the grant of an A licence.
Objectors were the British Transport Commission; Messrs. G. Tinsley and Son, Wigan; Messrs. A. -Stringfellow, Wigaro.Messrs. A. Liptrot, Platt Bridge; and Messrs. E, and T. Eaves, Ashton in-Makerfield.
Mr. Dunkerley said that the applicant had three vehicles on A licence, six on contract-A licence to Remploy, Ltd.. and one on contract-A and another pending to the Hilton Engineering Co., Ltd.
If the application were granted, the contract-A licences,for four Remploy and the two Hilton vehicles would be surrendered. Business was increasing and it was proposed to merge the work for the two customers to obtain more economical operation.
Mr. G. H. P. Beames, for the B.T.C.. said that Mr. Entwistle had obtained licences without running the gauntlet of a public appearance in court. Mr. Dunkerley was suggesting that because of the Allison decision a lesser degree of proof was needed by his client. Great weight was being attached erroneously to the Allison decision, Mr. Beames continued.
The Tribunal had said that a customer who in the past found contract-A licences or use of the C-hiring margin convenient was entitled to change and seek to obtain the services of a haulier. The Tribunal did not say that the haulier who owned hired vehicles had any inherent right to a licence, Mr. Beames submitted.
Mr. Dunkerley replied that the objectors had forgotten that they could rebut any case by providing evidence of alternative facilities. Mr. Beames, he said, was ignoring Section 9(3)(a) of the 1953 Act. The B.T.C. did not like the change of onus of proof under Section 9 Mr H. D. Mace, for the privateenterprise objectors. said that the interests of other hauliers should be considered by giving them an opportunity to acquire additional vehicles, but this suggestion was resisted by Mr. Dunkerley.
Mr. Entwistle said that all his vehicles were pantechnicons and that if the application were granted he intended to put A-licence vehicles on regular runs to Scotland, London, South Wales and the North-east for Remploy and Hilton. He did not sub-contract work because of the difficulty in obtaining suitable vehicles. He was not trying to establish trunk services.
The hearing was adjourned.