DO COMMISSIONERS FAVOUR COMBINES?
Page 61
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ACRITICAL reference to Traffic Commissioners in relation to licence applications by large companies was made by a barrister, Mr, Norman Harper, during the hearing of an appeal before Sir Henry Wynne.
Appearing for G. Barker and Sons, Ltd., Scarborough, which appealed against the granting of a licence to United Automobile Services, Ltd.. Mr. Harper said the U.A.S. application was to take over a service previously operated by Mr. J. Jewison, Of Scarborough. It was a significant fact that the company was buying a service which was not licensed to run in 1935. He submitted that the U.A.S. was never required by the Traffic Commissioners to prove desirability or need.
Traffic Commissioners, said Mr. Harper, did tend to accept without question applications from large companies that they would not accept in the same circumstances from others. It was, he added, a matter which was quite unconscious.
Another point raised by Mr. Harper was that the court which granted the licence involved in the appeal was not properly constituted, because the same Commissioners did not sit at each of the bearings.
NO PACT, NO LICENCE_ TAILLIKE to reach a private agree. ment with the United Counties Omnibus Co., Ltd., for the co-ordination of services in-the area, has resulted in Northampton Corpotation being refused permission to extend its St. James's bus service to the rapidly developing district of Ban-Cs Lane. Mr. J.-H. Stirk, chairman of the East, Midland Traffic Commissioners, had suggested that some agreement should be reached between the managements. ASS