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 
Three months outside normal user
Page 48
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• For three months a Merseyside haulier operated his three A-licensed vehicles entirely outside his normal user, the North Western LA Mr. C. R. Hodgson, was told at a Section 178 inquiry in Liverpool on March 28. At the same hearing the company, J. Anwyll Ltd., was applying to change its base and normal user by obtaining a new licence and surrendering its old one. The LA reserved his decision.
Senior MoT traffic examiner, Mr. J. Robertson, said Anwyll's base in Liverpool had been derelict since March 1968 and the vehicles moved to the premises of its associate company, F. and G. Pye (Transport Ltd. at Rainford, near St. Helens. From drivers' records for October 8 1968 to January 13 1969, it was found that none of the three vehicles' journeys had commenced in Liverpool and glass only had been carried, which was not within the normal user. Regarding radius, one vehicle had operated wholly outside the permitted Lancashire bo&idary, the second travelled outside for 21 out of 65 loads and the third for 42 out of 59 loads.
Mr. H. C. Brooks, another examiner, said he had interviewed Mr. G. Pye, on January 16 about this. Mr. Brooks said he was not aware that Mr. Pye had asked the RHA to make application to amend the normal user on October 31. He considered Mr. Pye a good operator as far as observing the law was concerned.
Mr. G. Pye, secretary and director of Anwyll, said the shares had been acquired in June 1967 and the vehicles had started carrying for the old customers. Gradually the glass traffic had built up until by mid-October 1968 it was being carried exclusively. He had told the RHA in June about the change of base: earlier application had been made impossible by the pressure of work caused by his brother's entry into hospital.
There were nine objectors to the A-licence application which included the addition of "Glass for Pilkington Bros. Ltd. as required" to the normal user.
"It would be helpful for us to be able to call on these vehicles," Mr. H. Lowe, Pilkington's transport controller, told the LA, but he would not like to say that he could use them regularly. Business fluctuated between 800 and 2,500 tons a week and existing hauliers could not always cope. He did not think the objectors would suffer by this grant. There had been five occasions in February when Anwyll had had to be used.
Pilkington planned a new production line which would require 3,000 tons to be moved weekly by the end of 1970. To cut down breakages of figured glass it was also intended to increase its own fleet by 10 vehicles. It was not practical to examine every haulier's licence daily but it would now be done periodically, said Mr. Lowe. Work given to Anwyll had ceased when the irregularity had became known in January.
Objecting, Mr. A. P. Bridge, director of James Bridge {St. Helens l Ltd., said requests for work were made almost daily to Pilkington in February. During that month he had been offered only one load other than for the two vehicles regularly working for Pilkington.
Six other objectors spoke of availability.
Mr. J. A. Backhouse, for the objectors, submitted that even when Mr. rye had applied to put his house in order he had continued carrying the glass until January. "Repentance was not as full as it might have been," he felt. Mr. Pye had not inquired who the original customers had been. Soon after acquisition the five vehicles had been substituted for three heavier ones and the base changed so that the two fleets could be married, he suggested.
Mr. Beames pleaded that the question of the amount of work allowed as abnormal user was a vexed one, never clearly defined. The change to all-glass traffic had snowballed but it was Mr. Pye himself who had instigated the corrective action before the enforcement officer's visit.