Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Three More for Econofreight

23rd December 1955
Page 53
Page 53, 23rd December 1955 — Three More for Econofreight
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

THE Transport Tribunal have allowed

Econofreight Transport, Ltd., Stockton-on-Tees, to add three vehicles to their A licence for the carriage of dolomite for British Chrome and Chemicals. Ltd. The haulage company had applied to add six tippers to the licence, but had been -refused by the Northern Deputy Licensing Authority.

It was stated that thevehicles were required for the carriage of general goads, road and building materials and chemicals, and that they would normally be used in Northumberland, Durham and Yorkshire. •

Thirty-one Tees-side hauliers and the British Transport Commission appeared as objectors, and as reSPondents at the appeal (The Commercial Motor, November 11),

In their decision, published last week, the Tribunal stated that Econofreight's case fell into two parts; the requirements of British Chrome for additional facilities for the transport of dolomite, and the general need for tippers to carry roadmaking and building materials. In regard to the first part, there had been an agreement between Econofreight and British Chrome for the hire of transport at the rate of £250 a month per vehicle. Respondents claimed that this enabled Econofreight to provide transport under cohtract-A licences. British Chrome, however, no longer wished to ue Contract-A vehicles.

"The need for sorne facilities for the carriage of about 2ID tons a. week not being in dispute. We think a: licence for three vehicles should have been

granted," stated the Tribunal. They agreed with the Authority's 'decision in respect of, the second part af the case.

Respondents had asked that the appeal he dismissed because dolomite was to be carried to Bolton, in Lancashire, a county not specified in the application. The Tribunal rejected this submission as it was clear that all hauliers interested in the transport of the dolomite were well aware that it was to be carried to Bolton, and no one was prejudiced by the defect in the appel lants' declaration. ,

comments powered by Disqus