Hatter Bros. Seek Five on A
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SUGGESTIONS of rate cutting were made during the resumption of an application by Hatter Brothers Bulk (Transport) Ltd. of Grays, for a new A licence in respect of five articulated tankers with a "Bulk liquids, Great Britain" user, which was heard before the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, Mr. D. I. R. Muir, last week. A decision was reserved.
The first day's hearing had been adjourned by thc L A to allow Hatters to produce a breakdown of their operating figures (The Commercial Motor, February 2). Resuming his cross-examination of Mr. K. Morris, Hatters' transport manager, M. A. W. Balne, for the objectors (Pickfords, Crow Carrying and James Hemphill), asked if any operational pattern had developed following a recent short-term grant for five vehicles. Mr. Morris said the true picture was obscure. Bad weather had been a factor, and there had been production snags with one customer, causing uneven demands. Mr. Morris confirmed that no traffic to Scotland was involved. They had operated from London, Chester and Derbyshire to South Wales. The vehicles were not fully employed.
Mr. W. McMillan, managing director of James Hemphill Ltd., was asked to explain a recent application by his firm, in the Scottish area, for two additional tankers. Mr. McMillan said they were maintenance vehicles; he understood that the Scottish L A could not differentiate between maintenance and operational vehicles. Mr. Muir interjected: "On that point he and I are agreed."
Mr. Morris asked Mr. McMillan if his firm had objected to any of the 400-odd applications for A-licensed bulk tankers published since March, 1964. Mr. McMillan said he bad objected to three or four in Scotland. "Our policy is to object to firms threatening our traffic." Challenged by Mr. Morris to "come into the open" if he felt that Hatters had poached traffic . or cut rates, Mr. McMillan said he had seen Hatters' vehicles at Hemphill customers' premises at Grangemouth and he had been told that certain traffics had been passed to Hatters at lower rates. "That is sufficient evidence for me", he declared.
Further pressed by MI. Morris, Mr. McMillan said he had no knowledge of anything similar happening in the past 18 months. "Then is this a personal thing against Mr. Hatter?" Mr. Morris queried. Mr. McMillan replied that he had a duty to his company to object to every, application that might prejudice their interests.