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
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196 
Salop haulier faces bankruptcy variation application refused
Page 71
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A director of a Shropshire caravan haulage firm said on Monday that the economic situation had caused a substantial fall-off in business and unless his licences were varied to allow him to do other work, the firm faced possible bankruptcy.
The firm, Shropshire Caravan Transport Co. Ltd., of Kinnerley, near Oswestry, unsuccessfully applied to the West Midland LA to vary its B licence to allow it to carry goods on behalf of T. W. Blockley and Son Ltd., of Heather, Leicestershire.
A director of the Shropshire firm, Mr. Donald Bennett Roberts, of Dyffryn, near Barmouth, said the firm had four artic and three flat vehicles. They were licensed to carry caravans and accessories direct from manufacturing centres in various parts of Britain.
Mr. Roberts said in recent months the caravan trade had slumped to the extent that currently he was using only two vehicles. The effect of the credit squeeze could be gauged from the fact that the firm's earnings for June, July and August were down E1,545 compared with the same period last year.
"Unless we get something else we will go bankrupt," Mr. Roberts declared.
Mr. Arthur George Dyke, a director of T. W. Blockley and Son Ltd., said his firm was engaged on general haulage work and was anxious to help Mr. Roberts. Blockley also acted as a clearing house and this side of the business had grown considerably. He would be able to offer Mr. Roberts work for his vehicles, which were capable of carrying big, if not heavy loads.
The LA, Mr. J. Else, said it seemed fundamentally wrong that a haulier based in Shropshire should move vehicles into Leicestershire on this basis. Hauliers in Leicestershire might be blissfully unaware of the application and might have wanted to make representations.
Mr. Roberts was questioned by Mr. Else about a vehicle which was kept largely at Barmouth. He agreed that in May the driver's records showed that it worked into and out of Barmouth day after day.
Mr. Else, giving his decision, said he was anxious to help, but the evidence before him did not justify granting the application. He added: "I don't like to see anyone running into difficulties through no fault of their own—the credit squeeze and so on—but to turn you from a specialist caravan haulier into a general haulier, which is what I would be doing, on the evidence available just is not practicable. I must refuse the application."
Mr. Else said he would not pursue the question of the vehicle kept at Barmouth because this would merely add to Mr. Roberts' difficulties.