Hauliers Not Cu storner Witnesses
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THREE furniture removers who sup" ported another removal, company's application for an additional vehicle were accused at Liverpool, on Tuesday, of merely trying to increase the number of pantechnicons in their pool. British Road Services (Pickfords), Ltd., claimed that there was no .evidence to justify the grant of a 3t-ton pantechnicon to H. Wilkinson and Son's, Ltd., Liverpool..
For the company, Mr. H. D. Mace said the three Merseyside removers supporting the case were finding it hard to keep pace with the amount of work in the area. If an additional vehicle would be detrimental to the trade, Wilkinson's free enterprise competitors would be just as much affected as Pickfords.
On Pickfords' behalf, Mr. A. W. Balite submitted that the substantial increase in earnings shown in the past six months by Wilkinson's vehicles was obviously mainly due to the removal of hire purchase restrictions. This had resulted in additional carrying of new furniture.
At present, he said, Wilkinson's three A-licence pantechnicons were only twothirds engaged on long-distance removals, but they would be released for more of this work if the additional vehicle were granted. Already Liverpool had an abundance of removal vehicles, Many of Which were not fully employed.
The three supporting removers were c2 fellow members of the National Association of Furniture Warehousemen and Removers, so their evidence, aimed at getting another pool vehicle, should not be accepted as making out a prima facie case. In any case, the figures produced did not show the difference between new furniture haulage and removal work. Evidence in support of one should not be accepted as proof of need for the other.
in reply, Mr. Mace pointed out that skill was required no matter what type of furniture was being carried, and it was impossible to differentiate between new furniture haulage and removals work. The company could not accept Pickfords' offer to withdraw provided the application was restricted to new furniture.
Refusing the application, Mr. Duncan said that on the question of whether there was any inherent difference between ordinary furniture removals and the carriage of new furniture the material factor was the purpose of the carriage rather than the skill required. But he accepted Mr. Babe's view that they were two different classes of work.
Hauliers could not be accepted as customer witnesses, he said, adding that one of those who gave evidence had been prepared to oppose an application by a non-member of the N.A.F.W.R.