AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

'Keeping up With the Joneses'

8th March 1963, Page 46
8th March 1963
Page 46
Page 47
Page 46, 8th March 1963 — 'Keeping up With the Joneses'
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

T " T is in the public interest that there should be an efficient, reliable and adequate transport system offering its facilities on reasonable terms. The

interests of those requiring facilities for transport are advanced by the granting of sufficient carriers' licences of the right classes to ensure that there is such a system, while the interests of those providing facilities for transport are safeguarded by refusing to grant licences which will result in wasteful competition and so, in the long run, impair the system which the public interest requires to be provided."

So said the Transport Tribunal when it gave judgment in the Jones Transport Services (Liverpool) Ltd., appeal recently, allowing the company to switch 30 vehicles from contract A licence operation to open A licence.

The Jones appeal judgment lays down certain broad principles to be considered by Licensing Authorities when deciding contract A transfers. Referring to section 174(4) of the 1960 Road Traffic Act, the Tribunal, in Jones, regarded (to quote the subsection) "the interests of the public generally, including primarily those of persons requiring facilities, and secondarily, those of persons providing facilities for transport," etc. In other words the Tribunal was saying: "Customers first; other hauliers who might be affected, second." This no doubt is the correct and commonsense way of going about things. To most Britons—and we are a nation of shopkeepers; we live by selling things—the saying "The customer is always right is natural enough. But can we afford, in this day of affluence, which has resulted in our roads being cluttered up with personal transport, to allow the customer to dictate whether or not another 30 or 40 vehicles shall be cast upon the roads, without giving a little more weight to the secondary considerations laid down in section 174(4) of the Act?

As things stand, now that the Jones appeal is a matter of licensing casebook history, objectors are going to have to do far more than hitherto to rebut a prima facie case made out by an applicant and his customer witnesses. In the case of a contract A applicant seeking an ordinary A or B licence, the applicant is at the winning post almost before he ,starts because most of the contract , customers are aware that their haulier j will be able to operate more economically If he can carry return loads, and they are only too willing to come to court to give supporting evidence. They are wise enough to know that when they have done so, and thus aided .in getting an open licence granted, their haulier j would not dare to approach them for , increased rates.

I The licensing floodgates, which were opened fairly wide with the Appeal Court's judgment in the Arnold Trans! port (Rochester) Ltd. appeal, have now I been opened to their fullest extent by the Tribunal's decision in Jones.

s20

Bearing all the above factors in mind, I found myself somewhat surprised at the lack of interest shown by hauliers in the very .recent application—a most substantial application, I may say—by W. Nuttall and Sons Ltd., of Clifton, Manchester, for a new A licence to authorize some 37 vehicles to carry "mainly batteries and accumulators and their parts, and detergents" in no fewer than 12 counties of the country, and also builders' plant and building materials for Lancashire contractors. If granted, Nuttall's proposed to cease using 29 vehicles operating under contract A licences and, lest I be accused of distorting the facts, the company proposed to surrender a current A licence authorizing eight vehicles.

Despite publicity given to the application both in the North Western area, "Applications and Decisions ", and in "Haulage Applications" in a November issue of this journal, only two objectors appeared before the North Western deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. A. H. Jolliffe, in Manchester when the application was heard last month. These were, respectively, the British Railways Board and the Transport Holding Company (British Road Services Ltd.). A personal appearance was made by Mr. V. Coward.

of Coward Bros. (Haulage) Ltd.— a London haulier who operates extensively between the capital and the north west— who was allowed to make a representation after explaining to the deputy Authority that he had discovered only recently that a grant made to Nuttall's might affect his company.

Nine other independent hauliers formally objected to the application, but did not attend the hearing. Most of them came from the Northern traffic area, and at least two are " regular " objectors in that area.

Customers Embarrassed The facts of the case are not dissimilar to those in the Jones application, although one of the main reasons put forward for the application was the unwillingness on the part of the contract customer—Chloride Batteries Ltd.—to renew the contract through Nuttall because of the wording of a specimen form sent out by the North Western L.A.'s office. This form required, apart from a change in the minimum payments, a certificate to be completed by the customer to the effect that the goods carried would not include goods for or on behalf of any wholly-owned subsidiary or associated company.

This caused embarrassment apparently because it was admitted during the hearing that Nuttall had, in fact, carried for certain subsidiaries of Chloride for some considerable time.

The customer witness, though, when pressed by Mr. G. H. P. Beames for the Railways, agreed that the question of economy was also in the minds of Chloride when the company supported the application, which was for an open A licence.

Unfortunately, both objectors "committed suicide" when they indicated, after obtaining a short adjournment for "some mature consideration" of the application, that they proposed not to call any evidence, Attitude Condemned Instead, Mr. Beames, in an eloquent submission, condemned the current attitude to contract licences and their use as stepping stones into the haulage industry. After pointing out that some hauliers erroneously thought that a contract licence entitled them to carry for associated and/or subsidiary companies, Mr. Beames said this;

"1 want to put on record the grave and mounting disquiet among operators

objectors—at the contemptuous ease with which applications are made to exchange contract A vehicles for A vehicles.

"To obtain a contract licence, all one does is to produce a contract at the headquarters of the L.A., and the licence is handed across the counter; and after a decent interval—and sometimes an indecent interval—one produces the customer and acquires an ordinary open licence which, in the old days, was a difficult thing to acquire."

Mr. Beames reminded, the Authority that whatever the Tribunal might have said in the past, it had never conceded that there should be an automatic grant of licences. In any case, it had to be remembered that the Tribunal's pronouncements were not case law. The Court of Appeal had said that they were merely guides to L.A.'s who must look at each case on its merits.

The deputy Authority's decision was quick and straight to the point. He said:

"I have done my best to sort out the Tribunal's views on this•question of contract A licences, and so far as any one decision is relevant, I think I should rely on the Jones case, which has a number of points in common and in which case they (the Tribunal) gave their views not only on contract A licences but on issues such as public interest. Therefore, in principle, I think this application should be granted." No mention was made of the illegal operations, you will note.

So there it is. From the North West 34 additional vehicles (Mr. Jolliffe reduced the grant by three) are able to scour around for return traffic—that is, in addition to the 30 allowed to Jones Transport Services in December. Whether the Railways and/or B.R.S. will appeal in the Nuttall case remains to be seen. What a pity the independent objectors did not trouble to pursue their objections.


comments powered by Disqus