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
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260 
N.A.F.W.R. Clash With R.H.A. on User Terms
Page 68
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE National Association of Furniture Warehousemen and Removers have clashed with the Road Haulage Association over the question of normal user. The dispute was revealed by Mr. F. F. Babb, retiring president of N.A.F.W.R., at their annual conference at Bournemouth on Monday.
Although the R:H.A. wanted A licences to be unconditional and not subject to restrictions as represented by normal-user terms. the N.A.F.W.R. executive council wholly agreed that this would harm the removals industry.
Removers were satisfied with the implementation of the 1933 Act and considered that it had given a specialized trade some measure of "security,. said Mr. Babb. Stability would be reached when the last special-A licence expired, he added.
Mr. E. J. White (White's Removals and Transport, Ltd., Birmingham) said that N.A.F.W.R. members found it difficult to understand why the R.H.A. should desire to depart from the provisions of the 1933 Act. The Licensing Authorities and Transport Tribunal, particularly in recent decisions, had shown that there would be no departure from the policy which had governed their decisions over all the years of licensing.
Members Not Happy
He did not believe that all R.H.A. members were happy about the farreaching proposals which their association were recommending. Like the removers, there were other functional groups within the R.H.A., such as those of carriers of agricultural products and bulk liquids. He believed they would think on the same lines as removers.
Having declared their normal operations, they would not wish an A licence to be unconditional and permit an operator in one field to switch to another just when he wished.
The largest N.A.F.W.R. memberPickfords—had on their licence simply "furniture and effects," This was typical of the removal trade's acceptance of closely defined normal operation. Removers desired no change.
"1 hope that we shall stand our ground and that the R.H.A. will think again," stated Mr. White.