AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Rates probe in Manchester tipping bids

7th October 1966, Page 29
7th October 1966
Page 29
Page 29, 7th October 1966 — Rates probe in Manchester tipping bids
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?

RATES and costs were a matter of some contention at Manchester on Friday when 16 B-licence applications were heard together by the North Western deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. A. H. Jolliffe. The applications involved 18 tippers to operate from a base at Clayton, Manchester, carrying concrete aggregates and sand from quarries on behalf of Len Shields Ltd. to depots of Quickmix Concrete Ltd., all within 60 miles of base.

The applications were met by objections from six hauliers and during crossexamination of a witness by Mr. J. Backhouse, for the objectors, the deputy LA intervened and told counsel: "You are going too far".

Mr. Backhouse replied that this was not a question of people ignorant of haulage or licensing and they were therefore not in a privileged position; they had, he said, been operating illegally and it was for them to satisfy the LA that they were going to conform with the law. He would submit that the C-hiring operations had caused an excess of transport.

At a later stage, Mr. Jolliffe intimated that under section 173 of the 1960 Act he could go into the question of rates.

Opening the case for the applicants, Mr. M. Carlisle had said that Quickmix manufactured and distributed concrete in the area, with plant at Clayton, Salford, Heywood and St. Helens. Sand was drawn from Stockport, gravel from Croxton, stone from Buxton and granite from Settle. The company's haulage requirements in the Manchester area were put through Len Shields Ltd., hauliers, with the vehicles running for Quickmix under C-hiring arrangements.

Len Shields Ltd. had run into labour difficulties and decided to sell the vehicles to owner-drivers but after the latter had taken over in July an MoT inspector had told Quickmix that this was a contravention of the law, and recommended that shortterm B licences be applied for. This, said Mr. Carlisle, was how operations were now being conducted. Clayton-based operators were paid by Shields, who deducted 5 per cent plus the cost of fuel and oil supplied. The net amounts being paid to them showed that the rates offered were reasonable, he contended.

The Manchester area manager for Quickmix, Mr. P. Healey, said the idea of ownerdrivers was to attract a better type; they still had vehicles on C-hire. Additional plant would soon be opened in Manchester and Widnes; extra haulage was required and on a recent occasion there had not been a tipper to be hired in Manchester.

When Mr. Healey was cross-examined about the present C-hiring, Mr. Carlisle intervened to say that further B applications would be submitted. Mr. Healey was unable to say whether Contract A licences had been considered but he promised that vehicles taken off C-hire would not be replaced.

Mr. L. Shields said it was decided last October to sell to owner-drivers. In crossexamination, he agreed there was no reason why Quickmix should not employ them direct. He would not agree that the rates were uneconomical, saying that established hauliers paid on the same basis were unlikely to work at a loss.

Mr. Shields said it was not true that the vehicles were sold because Len Shields Ltd. could not make them pay—it was due to labour, accident and insurance difficulties. Neither would he agree that, after commitments, owner-drivers had less than a driver's statutory wage left.

Mr. Backhouse said the objectors were concerned with costs and more information was needed to test the rates charged. It transpired during the hearing that an average of 3d. per ton more was invoiced to Quickmix than was paid to owner-drivers.

Apart from three unopposed applications granted to three operators paid direct by Quickmix, the applications were adjourned. URASER Bros. Contractors (Greenock Ltd., were refused conversion of tw vehicles of 7 tons from Contract A to norinz A at Glasgow last week by Mr. A. B. Birnit Scottish Licensing Authority.

The firm said it had a contract with Aii craft Marine Products Ltd. to carry ral materials and finished products betwee various centres in Britain.

Changes in the bulk of products, introduc tion of a new product and the internationE copper situation had resulted, in recer months, in the need for occasional heavie deliveries. Fraser Bros. used one of thei heavier vehicles and this meant that th authorized Contract A vehicle could be let unused for perhaps four days.

Mr. Robert Fraser, director of the firm claimed that it would do the same work an declared the proposed normal user as "Good! for Aircraft Marine Products Ltd. from Por Glasgow, Manchester, London, Gloucestei and Birmingham."

BRS opposed, and Mr. James Law con. tended that Fraser Bros. had only a limitec 15 per cent capacity right to cross the Border The proposed normal user would give their entry to the long-distance market for general traffic, if allowed. The applicant then withdrew the word "mainly" for Marine Aircraft Products Ltd. and confined the new wording solely to the goods of that company.

Mr. Roderick Mackenzie claimed that there was clear guidance in the Allison appeal for granting this application.

Mr. Birnie pointed out that there had been no breakdown of figures given. The customer's requirements were being met and it would seem that the customer had some concern for the applicant. It had been claimed that what was wanted resulted from periodic need but there had been no real customer evidence of that need.


comments powered by Disqus