Haulier's Second Appeal in a Year
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A HAULIER who had been running under Defence Permits until a year ago, and had twice been refused a carrier's licence, put his case for the second time before 'the Appeal
Tribunal, last month.
Mr. W. J. "Urquhart, of Slough, had 'no A licence before the War, but a B licence for -one vehicle, • and had two vehicles on contract-Alicences,, engag:ing' mainly in the liablage of agricultural requisites. Id September, 1949, he applied to the Metropolitan Licensing Authority for an Alicence for three vehicles and one •trailer to carry goods within a 30-mile radius of Slough and -toTitbiiry docks. This application was refuted.
Mr. Urquharea appeal against this decision was ieliretant1y refused.
Another application was lodged with 'the LicenSing. Authb:rity,. this time for a ,B licence, which was again .refused.
a36 Mr. Urquhart appealed once more, Mr. T. Campbell Wardlaw, who represented him, contended that the long period spent under Defence Permits had prejudiced his client's application.
Opposition to 'Mr. Urquhart's appeal came from the Road Haulage Executive, -represented by Mr. F. A: Stockdale, which had 48 vehicles in its Slough 'group. The R.H.E. had maintained that 'this number of vehicles was sufficient for 'the area's needs, but, said Mr. Wardlaw, had Mr. Urquhart's: sUbsti
• tution of licences for Defence Permits come up-earlier, when the Slough group numbered only 30 vehicles, his case would -have: been stronger, Thechairman, Mr. N. L. 'Macaskie, K,C.,:pointed out that this operator had had the benefit of Defence Permits for a period longer than usual.
TVluch of Mt. Urquhart's work, said Mr. ..Wardlaw, consisted of specialized haulage of goods for local manufacturers, including the carriage of goods for export via Tilbury. He argued that his client was able to give his customers the benefit of careful and specialized loading of goods to customers' requirements.
Mr. Macaskie, however, did not accept this argument, saying that any reasonably intelligent staff, whether employed by Mr. Urquhart or the R.H.E., should be able to give the particular care required by some classes of goods.
Mr. Wardlaw continued his submission by saying that the availability list put in by the R.H.E. showed that the need for adequate and suitable transport facilities in the area was not fulfilled and that there was still room for his client's services.
The hearing was adjourned until November 27.