AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Rate-cutting Charge in "Transfer" Case

10th July 1936, Page 31
10th July 1936
Page 31
Page 31, 10th July 1936 — Rate-cutting Charge in "Transfer" Case
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?

CERTA1N figures mentioned in an application before the Western Licensing Authority, at Bristol, last week, were kept secret. They were described as 2X and 2Y. Mechanization, Ltd., of Cheltenham, which holds an A licence in the Western Area for a large fleet of vehicles, applied for permission to take over the unexpired portion of a licence held by Mr. Chris Gay, transport contractor, of Bristol, for 10 vehicles (36 tons 131.cwt.) and three trailers (6 tons 8 cwt.).

Mr. P. D. Clarke represented the applicant and Mr. T. D. Corpe opposed on behalf of 12 other operators, whose bases are at Bristol, Melksham and London. Mr. J. B. Pyne represented the G.W. and L.M.S. Railways.

Mr. Clarke put in an agreement concerning the proposed purchase by Mechanization, Ltd., of Mr. Gay's vehicles and business. He asked that the terms of the agreement should not be made known to the objectors. The Authority stated that it would be improper to accept a document which could not be seen by objectors.

Mr. Corpe and Mr. Pyne agreed that they would not disclose the figures to their clients if they saw the document, and Mr. Clarke accepted this.

Mr. A. F. Wills, of the Bristol Haulage Co., one of the objectors, said that Mr. Gay's attitude had been one of open defiance. His excuse had, it was alleged, been that unless he worked below the recognized scale of rates his lorries would be idle. In cutting rates he had deprived others of their work and had caused enforced idleness.

He stated that Mr. Gay must be regarded as an interloper, as he came from Batheaston (his original base, since closed down) as a short-distance operator to establish himself in Bristol. Mr. Wills was of the opinion that if Mr. Gay were to give up his business, it would not cause any dislocation in the transport facilities in the district.

The goodwill, if any, of Mr. Gay's business had, it was further alleged, been built up from the traffic which he had been able to influence away from those who had hitherto carried it. Therefore, the goodwill did not belong to him, and Mechanization, Ltd., had no right to acquire it. It would eventually filter back to the rightful channels if Mr. Gay's licences were surrendered and not taken up anew.

The Authority maintained that the case was important from more than one point of view. He thought that the holding of the inquiry illustrated the need, in certain circumstances, for the Licensing Authority to investigate an application, rather than allow the licence to be transferred, and defer the hearing of objectors.. until the renewal of the licence became due. Decision was reserved.


comments powered by Disqus