AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Licence 'resurrection' wrong LA

24th January 1969
Page 32
Page 32, 24th January 1969 — Licence 'resurrection' wrong LA
Close
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 West Midland LA, Mr. J. Else, granting an A and B-licence application by Jones Transport Services (Midlands) Ltd. in Birmingham last week, promised to do all in his power to ensure that the licences held by certain sub-contractors who had gone into liquidation last September were not resurrected. "Although it may be lawful, it is certainly morally wrong for vehicles which have been licensed completely for one purpose, suddenly to be used for another purpose, even though it is within the normal user," he said.

Jones was applying to carry general goods on 10 additional A-licensed vehicles within Great Britain and on six B-licensed vehicles within 25 miles. BR and BRS were objecting.

For Jones, Mr. T. D. Corpe explained that 17 A and eight B-licensed vehicles were already owned but that about half the company's work had been sub-contracted to Brookes Freights Ltd. or one of its subsidiaries. On September 30 1968 Brookes had gone into liquidation; vehicles had been taken off the road and employees made redundant. Jones had re-employed 16 drivers and four mechanics and had been granted a 16-vehicle short-term licence.

With the help of its principal customer, the Austin division of BMC, who had lent seven vehicles, and by using spares, 11 vehicles had been operational in October, 14 in November and 15 in December, at a cost of about £12,000. Now a substantive licence was being sought.

The LA said Latham Haulage Co. Ltd., Lea Road Birmingham Services Ltd., Stratford Road Transport Ltd. and Brookes had all intimated that they had had no intention of surrendering their licences. Enforcement officers had found Latham's gates padlocked, though 10 vehicles were standing, but had found the other premises empty. He understood that the shares in Lea Road had been acquired and its three vehicles were now operating, but regarding the others he felt action could be taken under Section 177(1) of the Act as vehicles were off the road for reasons other than a fluctuation in trade.

However, if he did remove them and they obtained new work, they could start operating again since there was nothing in their normal users to link them with Jones Transport or its customers, observed Mr Else.

Mr. T. G. Udale, Jones' manager, said when Brookes had decided it could no longer carry on he could find only two other

sub-contractors to assist him. He was not seeking new traffic but just wished to keep his existing customers happy.

Mr. A. E. Wallis, deputy superintendent, Austin and Morris Division, BMC, said they used 28 of Jones' vehicles daily and 85 per cent of the traffic was he said components for factories in the Midlands, Scotland, Oxford and South Wales. He assured the court that business would not be passed to any former sub-contractors which might be "resurrected".

Similar assurances were given by Mr. C. B. Richards, purchasing officer, Mewls Cordage Ltd. and Mr. D. Gill of Rapid Magnetic Co. Ltd. who required minimum handling of his goods and punctual deliveries.

For BRS, Mr. H. Simpton said the latter two companies who spoke of countrywide destinations paid Jones £5,855 out of a £143,000 total turnover and he felt the areas should be restricted.

Granting the application, Mr. Else said despite the fact that the majority of the work was within the four areas mentioned and having regard to the existing licence and forthcoming changes in the licensing system, he did not feel justified in limiting the normal user.


comments powered by Disqus