Revenue Incredible, Say Tribunal: Director's Evidence Criticized
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
EVIDENCE given by Mr. John Stamper, managing director of J. Stamper and Co. (Haulage), Ltd., was severely criticized by the Transport Tribunal in a written judgment
published last week. As reported in The Commercial Motor on December 5, the Tribunal dismissed the company's appeal against the refusal of the Northern Deputy Licensing Authority to grant a public A licence on the surrender of four special A licences.
The appellants wished to replace four rigid platform vehicles Mk tons) and an articulated outfit (a total of 4f tons) by a similar number of rigid platform vehicles weighing altogether 20 tons and an articulated outfit totalling 6 tons.
The company's case was argued as being analogous to a normal " renewal " application. It was not alleged that customers required increased facilities. It was stated that the vehicles were fully employed and that the work demanded stronger and heavier vehicles, but there would be no increase in effective carrying capacity.
The reason why we dismissed the appeal is that, in our view, the evidence adduced as showing that the company's fleet, as it then stood, was fully employed, was, using charitable language, wholly unsatisfactory," the Tribunal. said.
Demands Declined Twice in evidence Mr. Stamper asserted that the figures produced in two tables related only to vehicles and traffic of J. Stamper and Co. (Haulage), Ltd. if, said the Tribunal, the list of the company's customers was complete and the average monthly tonnages carried were correct, it was evident that when Mr. Stamper gave his evidence the call on the company for transport facilities had greatly declined. The list might, however, have been incomplete.
Although a summary of traffic had been signed by a person acting in the name of a firm of chartered'accountants, no one tested the accuracy of the particulars given of the tonnage and receipts of the company's owe vehicles by setting the figures side by side with the number of vehicles available.
The Tribunal did so and found the result "literally incredible." They were unable to believe that a vehicle of 5-1 tons earned £17,762 in the year ended May I, 1956 (£3,382 per ton unladen per year), or that the three vehicles available during the year ended May 1, 1957, earned £32,496 (£3,170 per ton unladen per year).
The Tribunal criticized also Mr. Stamper's evidence on the heavy repairs which had been found to be necessary on the five vehicles to be surrendered. He produced files showing that in two years repairs and maintenance cost, respectively, £1,325, £1,302, £1,721, £1.354 and £540.
"It is plain," the Tribunal commented, "that the inference which it was hoped the Deputy Licensing Authority would draw from these figures was that the work which the company had called upon those vehicles to perform during these two years was too much for them." A cone D8 lation of this evidence showed that the suggestion was unfounded.
The Tribunal concluded: "We must not be understood as imputing to Mr. Stamper any lack of good faith. He is a busy man. In addition to being managing director of the appellant company, he has a haulage business of his own and is the chairman of two companies in Liverpool. It is at least likely that, though he made himself responsible for the figures we have criticized, he had played no part in their preparation."
[Editorial comment, page 7911