Should Vehicle be Deleted ?
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
UUNUSUAL points arose during the k-lhearing by the Yorkshire Deputy Licensing Authority (Mr. Willoughby Bullock), at Leeds, on Monday, of an application by Holmes and Co., Normanton.
The applicant sought permission to replace two A-licence vehicles, having an aggregate unladen weight of more than nine tons, by a vehicle not exceeding seven tons. As the substitution would involve a reduction in tonnage, Mr. F. G. Bibbings (for the applicant), submitted that the application was non-notifiable and, therefore, the L.M.S. Railway Co., which had filed an objection, had no locus standi. Mr. Bullock ruled against this submission.
During the hearing, it was admitted that one of the authorized vehicles had not been operated since 1934, and Mr. Sturge (for the railway company) thereupon suggested that not only should the application be refused, but that the vehicle which had not been operated should be deleted.
Mr. Bullock intimated that he iiitended to hold an inquiry, under Section 10 (3). of the Road and Rail
Traffic Act, into the question. whether this latter vehicle should be deleted..
Mr. Bibbings said that at the appropriate time he would strenuously object to the Deputy Licensing Authority taking any step to delete the vehicle From the licence, as he contended that the Authority had no discretion.ary power to do so, in view of the wording of Section 7 (2). .• This sub-section, he pointed out, laid it down that on an A-licence application made not later than April 1, 1934, the Authority must grant tonnage not less than the aggregate unladen weight of goods vehicles used by the applicant mainly for hire or reward at any time during the year beginning April I.
1932. Therefore, as the vehicle in question was used during the basic year, the Authority had no power to remove it from the licence until. the expiry of the full currency period.
Mr. Bibbings would challenge the right of any outside party to make representations at the inquiry to be held under Seddon 10 (3).
. The hearing was adjourned, pending a decision whether' one ofthe two vehicles in possession should be deleted.