AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Vital Statistics

9th January 1959, Page 31
9th January 1959
Page 31
Page 31, 9th January 1959 — Vital Statistics
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?

IT is possible that, as a result of the Transport Tribunal's written judgment on the appeal by J. Stamper and Co.

(Haulage), Ltd., Licensing Authorities will in future submit statistical evidence to even closer scrutiny than before. • Objectors may also be more sceptical of accountants' figures. The evidence given in that case was strongly criticized and the Tribunal's remarks, although they leave something to the imagination, should be heeded by applicants.

It is clear that the Tribunal regard accountants' figures as by no means sacrosanct. Each of the three sheets of a summary of the traffic carried by the company "bore the undated signature of someone acting in the name of a firm of chartered accountants," the judgment comments. "What the person who signed them meant to convey by signing them did not appear. It is not however, unreasonable to suppose that, whatever he meant to convey, his signature was regarded by everybody as clothing the figures with some degree of professional authority."

The cloak did not impress the Tribunal, and they obviously think others should not have been overawed by it. If the signatory had dated the documents and given a written certification of their accuracy, they might perhaps have been treated as bearing a more professional stamp.

Figures Not Checked The Tribunal appear to have been surprised that no one sought to test the accuracy of the particulars given of the tonnage and the receipts of the company's vehicles by setting the figures against the number of vehicles available. This is a fundamental check of authenticity which all Licensing Authorities may in future be expected to make.

ApOcation of this test by the Tribun4 produced a result which they found to be " literally incredible." They were completely unable to reconcile the unladen weights of the vehicles with the earnings, which, according to the figures, amounted to much in excess of £3,000 per ton unladen per year.

Stress was laid during the hearing on the heavy cost of maintenance of the existing vehicles, and files of invoices produced by Mr. John Stamper, managing director, showed that in the case of four of them, amounts ranging trom £1,302 to £1,721 had been spent on each in two years. Mr. Stamper declared that he and his colleagues had been shocked by these sums. This statement underlines the importance of regular cost recording and of the frequent scrutiny of all items of account, so that no expenditure comes as a surprise.

Although the Tribunal were critical of Mr. Stamper's evidence, they did not impute to him any suspicion of bad faith. Rather did they suggest that, as managing director of the appellant company, a haulier on his own account and chairman of two companies in Liverpool, he was taking on too much in making himself responsible for the figures.

The obvious lesson is that anyone who seeks to present and justify statistical evidence should be completely familiar with it. Often a manager engaged in the dayto-day working of a company might be a better witness than a managing director whose concern was more with policy.

Greater Weight, Same Capacity Stamper's had applied to the Northern Deputy Licensing Authority to replace five vehicles on special A licences by a similar number of vehicles on a public A licence. An increase of total unladen weight from about 15i tons to 26 tons was required, although the effective carrying capacity would be no greater. The appellants argued that their vehicles were fully employed and that the kind of work undertaken demanded heavier and stronger equipment.

The Tribunal point out that the case was presented to them and to the Deputy Licensing Authority as analogous to a normal " renewal " application. They did not, unfortunately, say whether, in their view, this approach was proper. They merely state that, if such an application were to succeed, it was essential, "all other questions apart," for the full employment of the fleet to be proved. In this case it was not.

It might also have been helpful if the grounds on which the Deputy Licensing Authority refused the application had been explained. The Tribunal upheld his decision, but they did so as the result of a statistical examination which the Deputy Licensing Authority had apparently not made. It would be interesting to know by what paths the two arrived at the same conclusion.


comments powered by Disqus