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
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152 
Significant Licensing Cases
Page 74
Page 75
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Weight Jugglers In Jeopardy
HAULIERS who have gained advantages by juggling with figures of unladen weight, and submitted application forms without
any intention of operating vehicles at the weights stated, are likely to be in a precarious position if a decision of Mr. R. Cleworth, Q.C., Leeds stipen diary magistrate, is upheld on appeal.
Mr. Cleworth had passed sentence of three months' imprisonment on a Yorkshire haulier for knowingly making a false statement. The operator was stated to have stripped down a goods vehicle for reweighing to obtain an alteration of the stated unladen weight by the taxation office. This was done for the purpose of gaining a variation of an A licence.
The defendant had applied to substitute a vehicle of 5 tons 4 cwt. for one of 4 tons 5 cwt. The case was objected to and refused. Before Mr. Cleworth the prosecution alleged that the defendant had arranged to have the vehicle stripped of its rear axle, side boards and other equipment, and have it reweighed so that a decreased unladen weight could be entered in the registration book. The parts were replaced immediately afterwards. '
The variation was then applied for at the new weight-4 tons 15 cwt.—and was granted without publication as it came within the 10-cwt, increase normally so allowed. The vehicle was reweighed later in its proper form, and a further variation application was made on the grounds of strengthening and alterations to the body.
Made Profits
The magistrate said that the defendant, by his defiance of the Licensing Authority, had obtained the use of a vehicle and made profits to which he was not entitled.
This case concerned the variation of an A licence, but there would, appear to be little difference between the manceuvres employed and those which have been common practice in connection with special-A licences. For example, vehicles have been weighed as platform lorries and altered to tankers following grants of special-A licences at the specified weights.
Similarly there was the Leeds case concerning the removal of an axle and its subsequent replacement. Conversions to eight-wheelers during the currencies of special-A licences, and the other methods mentioned, could all be held to be deliberate attempts to flout the intentions of the Authorities.
In nearly all such cases the licenceholder has signed the appropriate form stating that the vehicle is intended to be rim at a certain unladen weight, but El0 this is appreciably less than that at which it is actually being used. Although dealers in special-A-licensed vehicles have perfected an apparently foolproof way of exploiting the loophole in the 1956 Act, the hauliers concerned, as the licence-holders and responsible for filling in the forms, arc likely to be the sufferers.
Much of the credit for the fact that such practices have not been more widespread must go to the Area secretaries of the Road Haulage Association. Many of them have constantly advised members against making increases in ,unladen weight without notification to the Authorities.
,Ignoring the Licensing System
ri /FORE than a few hauliers consider rel licensing to be nothing but an academic set of restrictions to be ignored as often as possible in the day-to-day hurly-burly.
That this attitude may be shared by some of the executives of British Road Services was suggested by Mr. J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon when B.R.S. applied to Mr. W. P. S. Ormond, Eastern Licensing Authority, to transfer 45 vehicles and 17 trailers from Northampton to Bedford (The Commercial Motor, November 27 and December 18, 1959).
Mr. Samuel-Gibbon, for 52 objectors, submitted to Mr. Ormond that whilst Mr. L. L. Radcliffe, Midland licensing officer of B.R.S., had done his best to be helpful, he had apparently not been informed of what.was happening at the various depots. He was probably as horrified as anyone else at the revelations concerning the unauthorized movement of vehicles.
In trying to present only the best side of the picture in their applications, some depots appear to adopt the attitude of not letting their right hand know what their left hand is doing, The results are disastrous when witnesses are crossexamined.
An interesting point was raised towards the close of this inquiry,, decision on which is still reserved. Mr. R. C. Oswald, for B.R.S., submitted that if his clients had not had to make their application in a Traffic Area different from that in which was their present base at Northampton (the East Midlands), it could have been dealt with as one for a licenFe variation.
In the circumstances, he said, the onus of proof of need could not be as great as in the case of a newcomer.
Mr. Samuel-Gibbon responded that B.R.S. could not have it both ways. The objectors would be quite happy if the application were for a variation, because if it were granted and there were an appeal, B.R.S. would not be able to begin work before the appeal hearing, as they could if the appeal were against a grant of a new licence.
He said that he would ask Mr. Ormond, if he saw fit to grant the application, not to permit work to start from Bedford until the matter of appeal had been decided.
Keeping Up to Date
THE importance of keeping B-licence I. conditions up to date was illustrated at Liverpool last week. The operator of four vehicles lost two of them because they had become redundant.
This followed the concentration upon one type of work, which had dried up, to the exclusion of other kinds allowed by the licence. When it became necessary to renew the licence, it was difficult to prove need for four vehicles.
Any haulier who keeps his Authority informed of the operating position will receive sympathetic consideration if work is ever lost. A licence with outdated conditions is also likely to attract objections when renewal is sought.
B.R.S. Prepare for Expansion
I T seems that independent hauliers will shortly have to fight a number of applications by B.R.S. for additional vehicles. Straws in the wind are the absence or withdrawal of objections by B.R.S. in many cases where they would normally be pressed to the limit.
There was also a statement made on behalf of B.R.S. at Liverpool when they withdrew an objection to the addition of a vehicle to a free haulier's A licence, and said that they could not cope with the additional work.
B.R.S. are assisted in this preliminary process of building up a case of need because British Railways, their partners, are only too willing to shoulder the burden of pressing objections whenever the tactics of B.R.S. dictate withdrawal.
PASSENGER
Agents Incur Heavy Onus
ATRAVEL agent who seeks a road service licence and enters the same field as the principals for whom he acts is likely to incur a heavy onus of proof or need.
When a Hull booking agency sought an excursion and tours licence from the Yorkshire Traffic Commissioners (The Commercial Motor, November 6 and December 25, 1959) Mr. J. Malcolm Barr, assistant managing director of Wallace Arnold Tours, Ltd., pointed out the danger of such applications.
Evidence of need that booking agents could produce was in reality part of the goodwill of existing operators. Agents could obtain such evidence from being in a privileged position. The Commissioners turned down the application on the ground of lack of evidence of need.
There is no reason why a licence should not be granted to a booking agent as such, In this case the applicants were already running private parties to the Continent.
No Cure for Congestion
PrERE is much to be said for the contention that the mere provision of a bus station is not the cure for traffic problems, and that if access to it is not easy it may well produce worse congestion.
This argument was put to the Northern Traffic Commissioners when they considered Spennymoor Urban District Council's intention to provide a station in the centre of the town. (The Commercial Motor, November 13 and December 25, 1959.) Operators, including United Automobile. Services, Ltd., and the Northern General Transport Co., Ltd., argued that the council's proposal had nothing to do with congestion but arose out of theirdesire to develop waste land.
The Commissioners were also told that buses would have to turn into the station across the stream of traffic in the High Street. Operators of through services would lose travelling time and their timetables would be thrown out, However, the Commissioners took the view that the operation of buses from a central point in. the town would be in the public interest. They decided that the licences of the operators would be varied if the scheme is approved.
Opposing the Operators
OCAL authorities whose ratepayers -1—+ are served by bus companies battling to keep uneconomic services going far too often seem to go out of their way to oppose rather than " co-operate with those responsible for vital transport services.
The decision of Lindsey County Council to ask the Minister of Transport to introduce legislation to permit drivers of private cars to pick up fare-paying passengers would, if adopted, be disastrous for road passenger services.
The council took this action after the reduction of bus services to remote Lincolnshire villages. The situation was described as just as much an emergency as occurred during the bus strike of 1957, when special regulations enabled Car drivers to carry fare-paying passengers.
Whatever the situation might be in Lincolnshire, local authorities could do much more to co-operate with bus operators. Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, chairman of the Northern Traffic Commissioners, was moving in the right direction when he suggested that organizers of private parties in rural areas should, in their own interests, employ the companies providing daily services.
Smoke Signals
Can a haulier afford to give evidence in court against his customers? This question arises from the advice Mr. E. 0. Walton, secretary of the Yorkshire (Hull) Area of the Road Haulage Association, has given to members about how they should deal with irregular operation by farmers.
He has said that hauliers must be able to prove that the law is being flouted, and asks for evidence of unlawful use of licences which he can pass to the police or the Licensing Authority, but adds that a complainant may have to give evidence in court if proceedings are taken.
More detective work by the police and enforcement officers would be better.
If difficulties with Manx operators can be smoothed out, the scale of coach operation in the Isle of Man may approach that in Eire. The success of Sheffield thiited Tours, Ltd., in pioneering Manx tours may prompt competitors to follow suit, although many scoffed at the idea that such tours would pay.
Many hauliers feel that it is futile to give information to enforcement officers about illegal working by other operators because too few prosecutions are brought. They hope that the recent success of Yorkshire Area officers in bringing offenders to book may be repeated elsewhere.