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 
Takeover Risks
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TAKEOVERS in transport occur pretty I frequently; that there are risks in the process to the parent company is well illustrated by the following.
British Bakeries Ltd. took over Nicholas Kingsman Ltd., Canterbury Bakers, in April, 1963. Kingsman were a very small part of the whole concern, and, because the policy of British Bakeries was to make the minimum changes when they acquired control, no immediate changes were made in the transport organization.
Subsequently, the transport manager of the group recommended the renewal of the Kingsman fleet, and .a start was made when a further takeover enabled some rationalization of deliveries to be made. A combined fleet of 74 vehicles was reduced to one of 54. Of the 74 vehicles, 47 were taken off the road, and 27 new vehicles added.
It transpired that following depot inspections of Kingsman vehicles between September, 1964. and March. 1965, 13 immediate prohibition notices were issued. and Mr. D. D. Clark, transport manager of British Bakeries, said in evidence that he knew nothing of the issue of the GV9s until the company were advised of the public inquiry.
The regional transport manager of British Bakeries. Mr. C. .1. Saggars. said he was amazed to sec so many GV9s on a clip when he visited Kingsman's. He immediately reported the facts to Mr. Clark, and arranged for a thorough fleet check. Mr. E. Gloony, Kingsman's bakery and dispatch manager. said he had filed the GV9s as he hadihad no instructions to do anything with them. (I -should emphasize that corrective work was done by local staff on receipt of the notices.
There were other ambiguities in this case. A driver. who was not represented, was alleged to have taken out a vehicle with it broken handbrake cable, despite an instruction to the contrary. an instruction passed to the driver through an intermediary. The driver had been dismissed as a result of his disobedience, for soon after he left the depot the vehicle was stopped by an examiner,' and .given an immediate prohibition notice. .
In the event, Maj.-Gen. Eltrislie imposed a. penalty of reprimand, and _in :2iving his decision he said he. was not considering' certain matters.not because he considered some of the GV9s to be unjustified, but through .doubt as to whether they were brought sufficiently to the notice of responsible management.