General Complaints •
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Not Sufficient OPPOS1NG an adjournment to enable British Road Services to inquire into allegations of damage .and delay, Mr. H. D. Mace submitted to Mr. J. R. Lindsay, North Western Deputy Licensing Authority, at Liverpool, on Tuesday, that the applicant's customer witnesses were not on trial.
B.R.S. knew before they came to court what was applied for. They were seeking to sidetrack the main issue by cross-examining customer witnesses regarding their complaints. Section 9 of the .4953 Act had made it clear that customers' interests must come first.
• Mr. H. 0, Thompson, Wallasey, sought to add to the conditions of his
B licence goods for two named concerns. Mr. Mace said that last October the applicant was granted a B licence to carry for four named customers whose work was mainly inwards. !Me present application was granted the new work would be outward, giving more economic operation.
A representative of R. L. Butler and Co., Ltd., Wallasey, sheet-metal cabinet makers, said that most of their work was done by 13.R.S., who had informed them that they considered corrugatedpaper packing insufficient. ,They were not prepared to crate their goods.
After a witness for the Wallace Construction Co.; Ltd., Wallasey, stated that they no longer used B.R.S. because of damage and delay to sheet-metal frames, Mr. G. H. P. Beames, for B.R.S., asked for an adjournment.
Mr. Lindsay said he was always against adjournment, but general allegations of inefficiency against the objectors were insufficient and they should be given an opportunity of inquiring into the matter.
TEES-SIDE STEEL BOOM INCREASES TRAFFIC
-C-1 A BOOM in the Tees-side steel industry had resulted in more work for hauliers, the Transport Tribunal were . told in London on Tuesday. Messrs. Appleby and Dowling, Middlesbrough, appealed against the Northern Licensing Authority's refusal to add two vehicles, one of them articulated, to their A licence. The appeal was allowed in respect of the articulated vehicle.
Mr. Campbell Wardlaw, for the appellants, contended that their business was increasing substantially. They were having to hire vehicles, which had not proved satisfactory. The variation would enable them to dispense with some hiring and meet more adequately the needs of three steel concerns.
For the British Transport Commission, Mr. J. L. R. Croft said that the aPplicants had undertaken to surrender a contract-A licence if the grant were made. Other contractors inight have believed that the application was for only one new vehicle. This explained why there were no private objectors.