AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Dereg wasn't easy in Blackpool

9th July 1987, Page 94
9th July 1987
Page 94
Page 95
Page 94, 9th July 1987 — Dereg wasn't easy in Blackpool
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?

Tribunal offers Easyway advice

Ni As a result of complaints from both sides in a dispute, the North Western Traffic Commissioner wrote to Blackpool Transport Services and Easyway Bus informing them that he would hold a public inquiry on December 17, 1986, to decide whether to attach conditions under Section 26 of the Transport Act 1985 to their licences and/or make determinations under Section 111.

There was not time to conclude the evidence then, and the Commissioner told both sides: "In adjourning, I want to make it quite clear that if there are any more stupid inclidents at the bus station on either side, I shall take action, immediate action, to prohibit the services. So while you're away, behave yourselves over Christmas."

This is part of the background to the appeal by Jack Barry Mather, trading as Easyway Bus, and represented by John Leach, to the Transport Tribunal, and recounted by the Tribunal in its judgment The story starts with the appellant successfully registering certain local services under the Transport Act 1985 and commencing operation on October 27, with two services using Talbot Road bus station in Blackpool, which before deregulation had been used for around 40 years by Blackpool Borough Council buses. Following dereg, Blackpool Transport Services also used the station.

"That company," says the Tribunal, 'clearly wished to keep for its services as many as possible of the passengers who had previously used the corporation buses. The applicant, on the other hand, understandably wished to attract to Easyway Bus as many passengers as possible from those who had previously used the old services. It is not surprising that following 27 October 1986 there were accusations and counter accusations of unfair practices at the Talbot road bus station.'

The public inquiry on December 17 was adjourned till a date to be fixed (later reconvened on January 2), but on December 19 the clerk to the Commissioner wrote to the appellant: "The Traffic Commissioner has received details of various incidents from Blackpool police and Blackpool Transport Services Ltd which occurred at Talbot Road bus station, Blackpool, during the evening of 18 Dec '86."

The letter referred to a police report given by phone and the fact that Leach had confirmed by phone that he had been arrested for obstruction; the Commissioner decided to attach a condition to the 0-licence prohibiting J B Mather from using vehicles to provide services starting and finishing at Talbot Road station. The letter told the appellant of his right under Section 27 (3) to ask for an inquiry and of his right of appeal to the TribunaL On December 22 the solicitor acting for the appellant telexed the Commissioner that, with the greatest respect, only one side of an unhappy story had been given, and by the time an appeal had been heard Easyway Bus would have ceased to exist. Any misconduct by Leach was strenuously denied and to attach a condition to an operator's licence as a result of a phone conversation with a policeman when his client had not had the right of cross-examination appeared contrary to natural justice.

"The Traffic Commissioner," says the Tribunal judgment, "thereupon proceeded to revoke his order and to give an alternative direction. The precise terms of the further direction are not clear as no written record was kept or sent of the revocation or further direction. It seems clear, however, that the Traffic Commissioner informed the appellant that he could continue to operate local services provided that he did not use the Talbot road bus station.'

When the Commissioner reconvened the public inquiry, says the Tribunal judgment, a considerable body of evidence was called. In the course of his "very short decision" at the end of the day, he said: "I think that the initial action of Blackpool Transport Services was unfair in the way in which they duplicated the services, but we have heard that having received a ruling from this office that the circumstances under which services could be run that unfair competition was stopped . . . I think Blackpool Borough Council have run a very difficult bus station in a legitimate manner.'

The Commissioner also said that the present system did not seem to be unfair so long as the users of the bus station accepted the role of management, which Easyway did not seem prepared to do.

In the events leading to December 17 the Commissioner said he kept an open mind, but from the evidence Leach obstructed the operation of Blackpool Transport Services on December 18 and that obstruction took place in the bus station The Commissioner said he found subsequent behaviour on the road and incidents on December 23 and 24 totally unacceptable.

The Commissioner said that Mather seemed to indicate that he was not prepared to discipline beach" 'and if I allow the situation to continue we shall be faced with a state of anarchy on the roads.

"Therefore I shall attach a condition to Easy way's operator's licence as follows: no vehicle authorised for use under this licence may be used for the provision of any local service and that provision is to be effective forthwith. Similarly I shall make a direction that all registrations made by Easyway's are cancelled. In view of the financial situation of the company, I shall make no determination under the 1985 Act.' (The Commissioner was referring to Section 111 of the Act).'' Leach, says the Tribunal, is totally committed to the welfare of Easyway Bus and convinced they have been treated very badly, He submitted that the Commissioner should not have made the findings of fact that he did, and, secondly, that even if they were justified, the order was far too extreme and severe. In the Tribunal's judgment, there was abundant evidence to justify the Commissioner's findings of fact and the orders he made, faced with a very difficult situation, were appropriate and correct.

The Tribunal therefore dismisses the appeal, but in conclusion gives the appellant some advice, and that is to take advice on what steps are open in order to apply for removal of the conditions imposed and registration of local service(s).


comments powered by Disqus