1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252 
D URING the hearing of an appeal before the Transport Tribunal
Page 175
Page 176
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
in Edinburgh, the chairman, Mr. Hubert Hull, was heard to remark (as reported in The Commercial Motor last week) that lack of objection to an application did not entitle the applicant to a grant. The absence of opposition, however, was to be taken into account as favourable to the applicant.
It is obvious to anyone attending fairly regularly before Licensing Authorities that since the denationalization of road haulage, the bulk of the objections to goods applications by existing operators and, in many cases, to new applicants, has been left to the British Transport Commission. Over a period of time, such objections have become accepted by many as merely routine and for that reason sufficient attention may not have been paid to them.
At the beginning of last month the Yorkshire Licensing Authority heard an application by a Hull concern of hauliers to add two articulated outfits to their A licence. Their previous two applications, opposed by British Road Services and British Railways, had been granted on figures alone, as subcontracting figures were far in excess of those for the applicants' own vehicles.
The Licensing Authority stated that he was not impressed by evidence of inconvenience of hiring in the third application, as in the past year there was no complaint of hiring, on which more than double the earnings of their own vehicles had been spent. Having regard to recent appeal decisions, the application would be refused.
Asks
Same Evidence: Different Decision
Evidence was similar to that produced earlier and the evidence given by B.R.S. did not reveal any different situation from that existing at the time of the previous applications, yet the application was refused. It can only be assumed that it failed because nine Hull hauliers objected and thereby reversed the policy of the local area of the Road Haulage Association, who had previously not objected to applications by fellow members. Does this mean that the Licensing Authorities are looking for more than the usual objection by the B.T.C., or is it that opposition by a private haulier can be worth more than the Commission's objection?
In the majority of A-licence applications for additional tonnage the effectiveness of the Commission's objections has been in the fact that, by means of skilful cross-examination, they have belittled the evidence of the applicant and his witnesses, thereby raising a doubt in the mind of Licensing Authority as to the merits of the application he is hearing. If the Commission offer no evidence of comparable facilities, the applicant often obtains less than he has applied for, but if evidence of comparable facilities is given by the B.T.C., applications are, on occasions, refused.
It does appear that, when a private-enterprise haulier is objecting with the Commission, an applicant is often faced with a more difficult task, although the present procedure in traffic courts favours art applicant more than an objector. In a passenger case the applicant has to state clearly the points between which he wishes to operate and the objectors can give evidence of facilities comparable with the proposed outward and inward flow of traffic. It is rarely that an objector is at a disadvantage, except when a specific allegation is made against his facilities and time is needed to investigate the allegation.
In a goods application the objectors are frequently cornpletely in the dark as to the applicant's intentions until he outlines his case. At the end of his evidence, or in the middle, he often presents a large number of schedules of figures upon which the objectors are expected to crossexamine at short notice—sometimes an extremely difficult task and one requiring special knowledge.
Part of his case may be that there will be return loads from a distant town or port and then the Commission are at a disadvantage. They have facilities available in every part of the country, but obviously they cannot be expected to have all this information at short notice in the form of rebutting evidence and it is not desirable for applications to be part-heard so that objectors can collect rebutting evidence.
It sometimes happens that a haulier makes an application for additional A tonnage and his main flow of traffic is to a port in another traffic area; he bases part of his case upon return loads from that port. Privateenterprise hauliers at the ports have faced severe competition at the hands of the foreign-based operator requiring a return load and they are most anxious to stop the increasing number of lorries coming into their territory.
They are not, however, given the opportunity to object to the application in another traffic area, as it is not published in the Applications and Decisions of their own traffic area. Furthermore, it is not apparent that the extra vehicles are to be used for return loads from their area until the applicant states this in his evidence.
"Unfortunate Appeal Decisions"
A similar state of affairs exists in connection with an application to dispense with C hiring or contract-A licences. Because of some unfortunate appeal decisions, the applicant has to establish his case for carrying the traffic of one particular concern with whom he had the arrangement and the objectors are faced with the impossible task of rebutting the return-load part of the operation, as the evidence often adduced by the applicant is that he will find a return load from a clearing house when the time arrives.
Obviously, something will have to be done, sooner or later, to modify the procedure in goods licensing cases.
Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, the Northern Licensing Authority, has, as a barrister, realized that certain improvement could be made. In large applications, when many schedules are likely to be handed in by applicants and objectors, he has encouraged the parties to exchange the documents before the hearing. This method is used extensively in High Court litigation.
It is a sensible idea that assists the advocates in their task and has been favourably commented upon by the chairman c37 of the Transport Tribunal on more than one occasion. It is practically impossible to listen to a witness giving evidence and at the same time analyse and prepare to crossexamine him on the schedules of figures he has handed in.
If an applicant, when making an application in connection with his A licence, had to disclose, on his application form, the points between which he was operating or intending to operate, the position would be much more favourable to the objector. In addition, if the application were one of any substance, the parties should exchange documents beforehand.
If this were not done, the objectors should be entitled to an adjournment before cross-examining the applicant on those documents. The applicant and objectors would then be on equal terms and any haulier in another traffic area would have notice of the fact that the applicant was applying to carry return loads, from his traffic area.
Many hauliers are beginning to complain bitterly about the number of A-licence vehicles being allowed on the roads. A prominent Hull operator recently stated that he believed a 10-per-cent cut in vehicles all round would benefit every licence holder in his area. In present circumstances, he stated, the return on a haulier's capital investment was less than if it were placed in gilt-edged securities.
Change in Law Needed
Some hauliers think an objection is a waste of time, as the applicant often never appears, and although the application is dismissed, no costs can be awarded against him and he can, if he wishes, put in a further application next day. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs that needs remedying.
Not long ago, when the Northern Licensing Authority travelled into Cumberland to hear an application which was the only one in the list for that day, the applicant did not appear. No costs could be awarded against him, although the Authority, his clerk, the shorthand-writer and the objectors had been put to unnecessary expense in travelling and wasted a whole day.
It does look as if the new policy adopted by the Hull Area of the R.H.A. is the correct one. Far too many hauliers have been interested in taking advantage of the haulage boom after the Transport Act, 1953, and have ignored the future, leaving the B.T.C. to object to applications by prospective new entrants or existing operators.
If the R.H.A. were to take heed of the present position and consider the interests Of their members, they would adopt the example set by Hull, promote objections in all areas and, at the same time, use their influence to have the procedure in goods licensing modified on the lines I have outlined. Then an objection would certainly become worth considerably more than it is at the present time.
It is obvious that objections should be reasonable. There is not much point in a haulier with a fleet of tipping vehicles, used mainly for sand and gravel work, objecting to an application concerning the carriage of wool or livestock. Similarly, British Railways.should limit their objections to applications When they are prepared to carry the traffic and, if necessary, give evidence to that effect.
Far too many objections in the past have been made by the railways when they could not or would not consider the traffic, even if it was offered to them. This dog-in-themanger attitude would obviously influence a Licensing Authority into not paying sufficient heed to an objection by them in future.
Circumstances Alter Cases
No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when an objection should be made. It depends entirely on the district involved and the type of traffic to be carried. An application to carry general goods within a radius of 10 miles could be regarded as a serious matter in the Metropolitan Traffic Area, but, in an isolated district of Northumberland, it might be trivial.
Applications relating to passenger services, excluding increases in fares, are dealt with in a satisfactory manner and an objection is worth the time and expense entailed. In goods licensing, different considerations apply. Until costs can be awarded against an unsuccessful applicant, many hauliers would prefer to spend a day operating their own vehicles, instead of sitting in a traffic court objecting to an application. They prefer to leave such matters to the B.T.C., who have built up an efficient organization over a number of years.
If costs could be allowed against the unsuccessful applicant, the objecting haulier would probably still complain that, although he had vehicles available to do the work, he had not the time or money to waste in employing an advocate or preparing schedules of vehicle availability which the applicant's advocate seemed so anxious to examine.
In addition, so far as return loads were concerned, he had (he would say) recently been talking to hauliers in that other area and he knew they were anxious about foreignbased hauliers seeking return loads, but they were not afforded the opportunity to object to the application and he considered it a farce and a waste of time.
An objection is not a farce and waste of time if undertaken efficiently. A policy based on the lines I have suggested would, if properly organized by the local R.H.A. branch, as is already being done in some areas, benefit the reputable hauliers in this age of too many A licences.