"Bitten Off More Than He Can Chew," Says Mr. Nelson
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
" THE applicant has bitten off more than he can chew," said Mr. S. W. Nelson, the Western Licensing Authority at a public inquiry at Taunton, when he refused an application by North Devon Carriers, Ltd., to transfer a Contract A licence to an open A licence, in respect of a lorry operating from Bretton Fleming, North Devon.
The application was opposed by British Road Services and British Railways, and Mr. T. D. Corpe appeared on behalf of four other objectors.
Mr. John Gulstone, managing director of North Devon Carriers, explained that the firm had three vehicles based at Bretton Fleming, Combe Martin and Taunton, respectively. The first was permanently occupied with contract work for Goldburn Slate Quarries, Ltd. Increasing business kept the vehicles working constantly and there was difficulty in keeping them properly maintained. The company was repeatedly refusing work.
A letter from the Goldburn Slate Quarries was produced agreeing to the change. Mr. Corpe pointed out that the contract A licence had been in force for less than 12 months, and one of the facts upon which the Licensing Authority must be satisfied was that the Contract A customer wished to change. In this case it was the applicant who wanted the change and had asked the customer to agree. The Transport Tribunal, he said, had repeatedly emphasized that Contract A licences should not be used for easy access to open A licences.
Mr. A. G. Reeves, of British Railways. pointed out that the applicant admitted that work was handed on to other firms, which meant that present customers were in no serious difficulty.
Mr. Nelson expressed some sympathy for the applicant on "his first venture into the lion's den,'." but the application could not be granted. He advised him that he could apply for additional vehicles but emphasized that he . must ensure the presence of witnesses to support the application. Letters were not sufficient as there, could be no crossexamination by objectors.