PRELIMINARY JUDGMENT IN CARMAN'S

8th November 1963, Page 56

8th November 1963

Page 56

Page 56, 8th November 1963 — PRELIMINARY JUDGMENT IN CARMAN'S

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

'THE Transport Tribunal, in a pre

liminary judgment, has partially allowed an appeal by Carman's Transport Ltd., of Scholar Green, Staffs, subject to hearing further argument directed to the number of vehicles required to satisfy the needs of one customer—H. J. Heinz Ltd. —and to the extent, if any, to which that number could be reduced if the appellant's operations were confined within the declaration of normal user. The North Western deputy Licensing Authority had refused an application by Carman's on the ground that all the evidence, except for that of Heinz Ltd., related to work which originated "far outside" the traffic area, i.e., Dagenham, London, Slough, etc., and included incoming traffic from Germany via Tilbury. (The Commercial Motor, October 11). Such a grant, the deputy L.A. had said, would be contrary to section 171 of the 1960 Act. "We do not consider that this is in itself a ground for refusing an application ", the judgment said.

The Authority was under a duty to consider an application on its merits, notwithstanding that it may relate to work originating far outside the applicant's area. There was, however, the inevitable risk that the application might not be brought to the notice of operators outside the traffic area and a risk that even if they were aware of it, they would

not appreciate the full implications.

The proposal to use the vehicles "as authorized" would refer -any inquirer back to the existing declaration of user, hut with the exception of foodstuffs for Heinz Ltd. the evidence did not relate to goods within that declaration. The Tribunal did not accept the corollary that class or description of goods was not material in the case of an application for an A licence. In many cases it was "most material".

Carman's gave information about class or description of goods, but in such a manner that potential objectors would not be properly informed of the work which it was proposed that the additional vehicles should do.

The Tribunal therefore felt that it would not be right to grant such vehicles to carry goods not specified in the application and had come• to the same conclusion as the deputy Authority with regard to goods other than foodstuffs, but for different reasons,