AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Inch Gets Two Vehicles on Appeal

8th May 1964, Page 32
8th May 1964
Page 32
Page 32, 8th May 1964 — Inch Gets Two Vehicles on Appeal
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?

ALEITH haulier, George Inch, was successful in his appeal—also before the Tribunal on Tuesday—against the Scottish Licensing Authority's refusal of two new B-licensed vehicles to carry Shipping and Coal Co. Ltd. traffic within 50 miles. The appeal was based on the contention that the existing contractors had not objected, had failed to provide vehicles and were not prepared to clear traffic at Leith Dock. It was contended that there was clear evidence of inconvenience to the customer and clear evidence from their own mouths that the objectors were unable to carry the traffic.

For the objectors it was claimed that goods had been carried, there was no substantial inconvenience and no increase in the haulage bill over five years.

Mr. G. D. Squibb, president of the Tribunal, said the appellants were coal merchants who asked authority to carry goods for the Shipping and Coal cornpany, cargo importers handling 150 tons a week. That work had been done mainly by E. and J. Smith of Maddiston, and Charles Alexander and Partners. Neither objected to the present application. Evi dence had been given at the hearing that facilities afforded by the two hauliers were unsatisfactory in that they did not provide vehicles for removing goods from the dock as soon as cleared by Customs. The nature of the customer company's business had changed, with snore small lots and fewer large ones. The customer proposed to make full use of the vehicles to the extent of £7,000 a year and had considered entering into a contract to form the basis of a Contract A operation. Because of the nature of the work, however, that licence was not appropriate.

The Authority, said Mr. Squibb, appeared to have misdirected himself; he had said that he had no information as to the volume of goods to be carried. Mr. Loudon, for Inch, had pointed to the witnesses but the Authority had retorted: "You can also tell the Tribunal that I took no account of what the witness said ". Mr. Squibb said if he (the L.A.) meant-by that that he disbelieved the witness then the Tribunal could see no grounds for acceptance of that opinion. In the Tribunal's view, the Authority did not attach sufficient weight to Mr. Koyman's supporting evidence.


comments powered by Disqus