GRANARY HAULAGE
Page 38
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Return load evidence causes difficulties
1% AR. NORMAN CARLESS, appear ing for a number of objectors in the Granary Haulage application at Birmingham at the beginning of the month (" The Commercial Motor ", November 9), rightly pointed out to the West Midland L.A., Mr. J. Else, that the insertion of the words "and return loads as required" into the normal user requested by Granary in its A licence, placed the objectors in some difficulty.
If the back traffic formed part of the case, he said, there would have to be proof of need for it and specification in the user.
But Mr. J. Foley Egginton, making the application on behalf of Granary Haulage, did not agree with this contention. "Of course, we have to justify the need for these vehicles by evidence of need for outward traffic. If that is done, well then, the need is established and I shall call your attention to certain decisions on this point ", he said. One did not, he added, have to prove the need for return traffic.
," Then why mention it in the user— that's what baffles me ", interposed Mr. Else.
When Mr. Foley Egginton replied that it was not necessary to mention the return traffic—it had been put in to indicate that the applicant intended to carry return traffic, Mr. Else said that he would have thought the "A and D" publication would have indicated to an intelligent haulier or railway official that something different to what could be done under a B licence was required.
It was a matter of general and accepted practice, Mr. Else continued, though he would not go so far as to say that he agreed that it was not necessary. It was probably more expedient not to go into the return load need. "How far the statute would support that view, if one got some particularly legalistic mind
applied to it, I am in doubt ", he remarked.
There were more difficulties than this brought about by the present Granary Haulage application, and the objectors were quick to highlight them. Granary Haulage was applying for an A licence for 12 vehicles which were at present operating under B licence. The company wanted to carry various commodities for nine named customers, who, it was said, were in some way associated with it.
Mammoth Objection
' When the case came up for hearing (and there was mammoth objection from more than a dozen West and East Midland operators) Mr. Foley Egginton had indicated that Granary wished to add to its proposed user the words "and other persons and companies with whom they are carrying out trading transactions."
Mr. Else pointed out that it was obvious, if the application was left in that way without the extra customers' names actually being specified in As and Ds, when the customers were disclosed at the hearing, someone was bound to ask for an adjournment so that they could call rebuttal evidence.
Mr. Carless said that, if published in the terms suggested, anyone who felt remotely that his interests were affected would have a duty to object. But he quickly came back to the question of return traffic. The objectors, he said, were not so bothered about the 'return traffic. They could meet any challenge with respect to that. But if there were going to be witnesses brought up from, say, Cornwall, that they (the objectors) would know nothing about until the morning of the hearing, they would be faced with serious difficulty. How would they be able to say what alternative facilities there were to deal with return traffic?
Outward Traffic When Mr. Foley Egginton quite properly countered this by saying that, if the need for the outward traffic was justified, then Granary Haulage had an inherent right to carry return loads, Mr. Else agreed that there was a great volume of case law to support this. But one must not, he said, overlook the background in the particular case. (Granary Haulage had been granted B licences after a contract A to A switch had been refused last June.) If Granary was asking for contract A to A licences, the considerations about associated companies would still stand as good as they did in June, and no one was going to move from his (Mr. Else's) mind easily the fact that this was an intermediate stage.
To Mr. Foley Egginton's reply that there was nothing to prevent anyone at any time applying for any sort of licence, Mr. Else referred to the discretion of a Licensing Authority. There was a substantial body of case law which any Licensing Authority would be foolish to ignore with regard to return loads, he concluded, ordering an adjournment and a republication of the application.