1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144 
The Ethics of Take-over Bids And Licence Applications
Page 81
Page 82
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SUBMIESSIONS made on behalf of Merchandise Transport, Ltd., regarding procedure in take-over applications, after the methods adopted by the conipany and their associate Harris .Lebus, Ltd., in respect of the C. E. Dormer companies became the subject of an inquiry ("The Commercial
Motor," October 28) were described by the .Metropolitan Licensing Authority, Mr. D. I. R. Muir, as an invitation to list all such applications for public inquiry.
During the inquiry Mr. Muir was told by a witness now employed by the company. but formerly with the solicitors who advised the take-over procedure, that Licensing Authorities often sought unnecessary information and he saw no reason why the connection of Merchandise Transport with the transaction should have been disclosed at the time when the new Dormer companies were being formed.
Answer Properly It.was not an applicant's responsibility tq tell the Licensing Authority anything, but only to answer the proper questions fully and fairly. If anyone was at fault it was. the Licensing Authority for not making further inquiry at the time of
the applications. Similarly, objectors were only entitled to know what facilities were being offered to the public.
The interpretation of the law put forward on behalf of Merchandise Transport was that the basis of an application for A licence continuation was the provision of the same facilities previously offered to the public—the identity of the custorriers was incidental.
Letters pribduced in support of a takeover application were not a statement of intention sufficiently precise or definite' to justify revocation or suspension; they did not prove volume of traffic, only type and goodwill. The new licence-holder was not bound to carry for any one of the customers named.
Not Their Duty
It was not part of the duty of the person acquiring the shareholding of an A licence to seek the former customers' traffic, but only to provide the facilities they formerly enjoyed—there was no obligation to seek them out and serve teem.
it may well be that in this particular case this submission is correct as the normal user granted was, " Mainly new furniture, any distance." The question whether the transfer of shares immediately after the new licences were granted was a deception of the Licensing Authority and potential objectors, and so punishable under the Act, remains to be decided.
It was stated that the directors of Harris Lebus, Ltd., had not been told that they would have obligations to former customers if they took over A licences, and might not have agreed to the transaction if they had known what was entailed in that respect.
Short-terra Operation Is Good Evidence
'THE decision of the Northern 1 Licensing Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, in the Millikan case (The Commercial Motor, October 21), to bar figures of short-term licence operation from being given as evidence of need for a substantive licence—after a submission by objectors that it enabled an applicant to produce evidence to the detriment of objectors and could not be "without prejudice,"—has. quickly been frowned upon by the Transport Tribunal
One week later, in the Siddle, C. Cook appeal, they said in no uncertain terms that it was unrealistic to ignore facts, and such evidence could properly be given.
There was more force in a submission, during the Millikan hearing, that shortterm licences were never intended to be used as a means to enable applicants to bridge the gap between making an application and the date of hearing, but were intended for emergencies.
Until recently, potential objectors had grounds for complaint in that applications for short-term licences were often granted without publication, but this has now been remedied and the real answer is to object to the grant of the short-term application when. if the objection is well founded, there will he a refusal until the hearing of the substantive application.
It is interesting to note that three days before the Tribunal's comments, and only a week after the Millikan inquiry, Mr. Hanlon granted a B licence application to which there were four objectors, snick on evidence of short-term operation as presented by the applicant.
Trailer Weights Again.
I N the McKelvie appeal, the decision appeared almost .simnPancously with the report of the refusal of a .Siddle.C., Cook, Ltd., application by the Northern Deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. G. W. Duncan. This again raises the question of whether applicants should be required to show actual trailer weights when making applications for licences.
Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw argued this question on behalf of Cook, who sought to transfer two trailers from special A to public A licence. Fle submitted that nowhere in the Transpor;
SIR HOBERT also gave a hint to Licensing Authorities dealingwith the question of traffic peaks in. certain industries. Referring to the carriage Of fruit from the Vale of Evesham, he suggested the sensible thing to do at peak periods would be to grant more short-term Licences in the same way as sugar-beet traffic was dealt with in the Eastern part of the country.
PUNISHMENTS for breach of normal user have in many cases been severe, hut Shephard and Hough, a West Midland haulage concern, have good cause for Complaint, having found to their cost that recent long delays in the hearing of appeals had the effect of s-eriously.increasing the penalty inflicted on them for a complete change of normal user.
The Licensing Authority refused 12 out of 16 vehieles sought on a new A licence early in the year, in addition to suspending the four vehicles granted for a period of three minaths Although the 12 vehicles could have been operated on the original user pending the hearing of the appeal, there. was no work available and, except for two vehicles transferred to C licence, the Tribunal were told they had been idle for nearly 10 months. Decision in this case is to be given in writing.
Acts could it be found that trailer weights had to be considered, and contended that questions on the application forms had not the force of law. The objectors (including Robert Wynn, Ltd.) declined
to take up Mr. Wardlaw's challenge to prove his exposition of the law wrong, but were supported by Mr. Duncan who said that the grant would enable Cook to carry 100-ton loads and put them in a different class of traffic.
Mr. Duncan's view of the law was that Licensing Authorities had very wide discretion in matters of this sort; a similar application by one of the objectors, Elliott and Co. (Bishop Auckland), Ltd., was granted in November, 1959, when the Licensing Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, insisted that the unladen weight of the trailer should be entered on the application form before proceeding. .
In the Elliott case, Mr. Noel Wynn submitted that if the Tribunal upheld decisions granting trailers of an unSpeci fled weight, the licensing system would fall to the ground.
The Transport Tribunal, in the McKelvie appeal—where trailers had been substituted on a special A licence specifying the numbers only and not the weights—said that the matter was simply a question of what the form had authorized the applicants to do, which was to operate seven trailers and no question of unladen weight was involved. McKelvie admitted that during the currency of the licence they. had Considerably increased the weights of the trailers, as,_indeed,_has been common practice among many; hauliers.
In view of this decision, SicIdle C. Cook, Ltd., have. appealed. Meanwhile, there is nothing to prevent their operation of heavier, trailers until the special A licence expires.
In has been clear for some time that there was nothing illegal in increasing the unladen weights of special A trailers, but in most, traffic areas applicants fr.) A and B licences are required to specify trailer weights when making applications, and this procedure has never been challenged. The Tribunal's reaction to ;submissions that trailer weights do not normally requite to be specified should be helpful.
Letters As Evidence
• THERE have been many complaints from hauliers and Licensing Authorities at the 'deliberate policy of a number of large industrial organizations in refusing to send witnesses to give evidence in support of applications to carry their goods.
Some Licensing Authorities have retaliated by refusing to grant applications supported . only by . letters and figures, but the Tribunal. have now clearly indicated that they consider evidence of letters from substantial customers, plus general knowledge of expansion in a particular industry supported by proper Figures, can be sufficient to justify the grant of additional vehicles on A licence.
They upheld a two-vehicle grant to Siddle C. Cook, Ltd., by the Northern Deputy Licensing Authority on similar evidence and affirmed that on previous occasions when they upheld the refusal of the Northern Licensing Authority to grant the company additional vehicles, it was not lack of customer witnesses, For some time now, Mr. Hanlon has refused to grant applications to carry' steel unless customer witnesses could be produced, but it now appears that this requirement is not a necessity.
PASSENGER
Highlanders Want Bus Subsidy
THREATS of withdrawal of 1 unrernunerative services did not deter the objectors to the seeond appli cation by Highland Omnibuses, Ltd., to increase fares, following the refusal of their first application, as preinature.
They submitted that the Scottish Omnibuses Group, as a whole, was Making 'a reasonable profit and could well suhsidiie an associate company in difficulty. The railways were heavily subsidized out of public funds to continue unremunerative operations, and it was unreasonable that another branch of the British Transport Commission should be allowed to continue to raise fares at the expense of one section of the public, when they had a practical monopoly of passenger transport following rail closures.
Such heresies cut across established practice, but with continual increases in wages and other costs making it impos-. sible wholly to balance unrernunerative routes by those that pay, essential country services should be made a national responsibility.