GOODS LICENCE REFUSED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21844, 5 July 1934, Page 14

GOODS LICENCE REFUSED

ROUTE FROM WHANGAREI MAIL CONTRACT INVOLVED FAILURE OF APPEAL [UY TEI.KCKAPII —OWN" CORHF.HI'ONDENT] WHANGAREI, Wednesday The Transport Co-ordination Hoard sat at Whangarei to-day to hear an appeal by .T. S. Ryan (Mr. Trimmer), whoso application lor a goods service licence to operate on tho WhangarciTaurikura route had been refused by the No. 1 Transport Licensing Authority.' The appeal was opposed by P. Wright, holder of a passenger and parcels licence, and W. R. L. \ allance, holder of a goods licence over the same route. Mr. Johnson appeared for Wright and Vallavice. Mr. Trimmer said that at the end of last year the Postal Department called tenders for a mail contract for AYha-ngarei-Taitrik lira-Whangarei Heads and appellant was the successful tcnderei. Unfortunately the department was under a misapprehension that mads did not come within the definition of poods and Ryan was assured ho did not require a licence. 'lhis trouble had been experienced'in other parts of New Zealand because of the same reason. As a result of this assurance Ix.van sold Ins old car and purchased a new vehicle. Decision of Authority However, he found later he must have a licence, continued counsel, and applied to the No. 1 Authority for a goods licence, which was refused on the ground that a regular goods service was not necessary and secondly that an adequate ■number of carrying firms in Whangarei could carry goods in this area, At that time the only existing service was run by Wright, wh'o was licensed to carry passengers and parcels. The fact that Wright had a passenger licenco was not an adequate ground for refusing a goods licence to Ryan as Wright could not carry the innumerable articles required by settlers over tho wide farming area, said Mr. Trimmer. Local carrying firms must charge prohibitive prices to make special trips with a small load of goods. At present a large number of farmers had to fall back on the Whangarei Dairy Company and this system was not satisfactory, as in the' ofT season the lorries ran very infrequently. Another Licence Granted The Posta} Department had since stated that if Ryan was grauted a licence it would give him back his contract which had since been given to Wright, continued counsel. When Ryan

was refused a licence in January last he put in a fresh application which came before the authority in April. However, in the meantime Vallance had been granted an area licenco in tho Manaia riding of Whangarei County, which covered that district. Counsel contended that Vallance had no better grounds for being granted a licence and it seemed hard to understand why tho authority granted Vallance a licence when six weeks previously it had refused a licence to Ryan, who was fortified with the mail contract. Mr. Johnson said that in the first place Wright carried on the mail contract at £l5O per annum, but at the end of last year Ryan was tho successful tenderer at £llO per annum. In considering Ryan's application the authority realised that with the postal contract'of £llO he would have to run at 3.6 d per mile if no other business was offering and in refusing the application the authority considered he was not in a financial position to run the service.

Attitude of the Board As regards 'the area licence to Vallance, cofitinued Mr. Johnson, the great thing which concerned the authority was that the passenger service of Wright should bo protected and in the licence issued to Vallance he was prohibited from carrying consignments of less than lewt. In the event of Wright losing the mail contract it would be impossible for him to maintain the existing passonger service and this licence tho authority desired to protect. In giving the decision of the board, the chairman, Sir Stephen Allen, said the board considered that as a licenco had been granted to Vallance there w;as no need for a further goods service licence to Ryan. No doubt the department would call tenders at a later date for the mail contract and any licensed carrier might tender. The board wished to make it quite clear that it did not wish to restrict the mail service to Wright. The appeal was dismissed, no order being made as to costs.