R.H.A. Advice Wrong—Mr. Hanlon
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SUGGESTIONS had been made that the Northern Area of the Road Haulage Association had tendered advice to an operator purporting to justify -the addition-of an axle to a special A licensed vehicle. No direct evidence of this was before the Northern Licensing Authority, and the case at Carlisle last week was adjourned for a witness from the Association to be produced. The Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, took this action, after hearing an application by J. B. Hudson, Ltd., Milnthorpe, to transfer an eight-wheeler of 7 tons 13 cwt. unladen from special A to A licence..
Mr. T. W. Campbell Wardlaw, for, the applicants, said the vehicle was originally a six-wheeler and had been converted during the currency of the licence. When purchased from the British Transport Commission, the registration book showed its vehicle weight as 6 tons 18 cwt., but when,: after some months, it was weighed it was 7 tons 9 cwt., although there had been no alteration. On advice from the makers, it was decided to fit an additional axle and the Mr. company's managing director, M. Harold Simister, consulted the R.H.A. in Newcastle as to whether he should apply for an A licence and inform the Licensing Authority.
He was told-that after discussions with
• the clerk to the Licensing Authority they had been advised it -was unnecessary as if was not a change of Vehicle. The additional axle was fitted in May, 1956. Mr. Hanlon commented that he could not accept that the vehicle was originally 7 tons 9 cwt. without proof: The application was made at 6 tons. 18 cwt. Mr. Campbell WardlaW replied that the conduct of Mr. Simister had been exemplary, the facts here were completely different from those in the Allinson appeal, which did not decide the rights or , wrongs of a change of
weight without notification. . . The operator could not be exonerated
from responsibility, said Mr. Hanlon. The Transport Tribunal had. rejected.. the suggestion that such manteuvres were legitimate. Whether it took place weeks or months after the application made no difference. The clerk to the Licensing Authority was not the 'exponent of the law and, evenif any advice had been given, it did not give an operator permission to act irregularly. The R.H.A. had never put this limiter to the Licensing Authority as a proposition, and it could not be done openly and honestly. If it was allowed to continue, a coach and horses could be driven' through the Act. Questioned by Mr. Hanlon, Mr. Simister said that he took professional advice, and, although he was surprised, he did not question it. The company had benefited irregularly by a 4 tons greater carrying capacity since June. 1956, said Mr. Hanlon, and if this was general among R.H.A. members, further inquiries must be made,
REVOCATION INQUIRY
THE revocation or suspension of •the licence of Oakleys (London and Scottish Transport, Ltd.) was due to be considered by the Metropolitan .Licensing Authority at a public inquiry yestet'clay. The inquiry was brought under Section 13. of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933.