AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

L.P.T.B. Undercuts Independent

10th January 1936
Page 60
Page 60, 10th January 1936 — L.P.T.B. Undercuts Independent
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?

IT is understood that a member of Associated Road Operators, in the Metropolitan Area, was recently asked by the secretary of a women's institute to supply three 30-seater coaches for an outing. The operator had not previously undertaken this class of work for the body in question and, in order to cover himself from a legal aspect, he applied to the Metropolitan Commissioner for a special licence for the trip.

Consideration of the application was deferred pending the consent of London Transport being obtained ; this was refused. It was definitely ascertained that the organizer would receive no remuneration, no advertisement of the event was proposed, the trip had never been'undertaken before, and the hire of the vehicle, that was to be em

ployed, would be paid for as a whole.

The operator was reasonably satisfied that the work was of the contract class, but it is stated, pending his acceptance of it, a representative of London Transport interviewed the organizer and informed her that in no circumstances could the operator in question undertake the work without a licence, The official of the Board quoted a price lower than that offered by the independent operator and, in view of the uncertainty created in the organizer's mind, she accepted the Board's tender.

'the Board is free to undertake the work, either at a charge per head or for a lump sum, by reason of the fact that the vehicles will follow routes already advertised and over which the Board operates services.