Vehicle Lost and Won
Page 62
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I N an appeal decision issued last week, the Appeal. Tribunal upheld the action of the South Wales Licensing Authority in refusing to allow Mr. J. J. Norris, of Cardiff, to operate an additional vehicle, but directs the Authority to add a vehicle to his B licence.
Mr. Norris, a coal merchant and haulier, bought a similar business from Mr. E. A. Beavis, of Cardiff, but did not take over the two vehicles used in it because of their poor condition. He applied for the variation of his B licence, requesting the addition of one vehicle in place of the two formerly run by Mr. Beavis. The Licensing Authority granted this application under Section 11 (3) (b) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, thus treating it as one not requiring to be published.
When Mr. Norris applied for the continuation of his B licence, the Licensing Authority published the application as one without modification, for two vehicles. The Railway Executive pointed out that, according to the records, Mr. Norris was authorized to run only one vehicle, so the Licensing Authority republished the application as for a B licence with modification. 'At the same time, the grant of the variation was published as having been made under Section 11 (3) (b). Hearing of the application was spread over six months. The Railway Executive maintained that, as far as the second vehicle was concerned, Mr. Norris must show that Mr. Beavis had a genuine haulage business to transfer, that the customers of the business were willing to transfer their patronage to Mr. Norris, and that a second vehicle was necessary to deal' with those customers. This evidence was not produced, and the application was refused.
Summoned to Attend
Efforts to produce Mr. Beavis as a witness at the inquiry were unsuccessful, ;put the Tribunal summoned him to attend the hearing of the appeal.
In its decision, the Tribunal says that the Licensing Authority was mistaken in treating the original application as falling within the terms of Section 11 (3) (b) and should have published it. If he had wished to deal with it in that way, he should have insisted that Mr. Norris withdraw his application for a variation and demand that a new application be made.
The Tribunal agrees with the Licensing Authority's subsequent refusal to license the second vehicle. It finds. however, that on Mr. Beavis's evidence an additional vehicle was justified.