AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Customers Refused New Contract

11th December 1959
Page 44
Page 44, 11th December 1959 — Customers Refused New Contract
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?

WHEN Mr. T. Orton, Birmingham, sought a new A licence for two vehicles to replace one on contract-A licence before Mr. W. P. James, West Midland Licensing Authority, on Tuesday, he said that his customers had declined to enter into a new contract because he could not meet the rates of hauliers who were able to carry return loads.

The customers were William Cumming and Co., Ltd., Bilston, foundry-requisite suppliers. Mr. Orton, who conducted his own case, said that he was seeking two vehicles because, if the application were granted and he was able to carry return loads, one vehicle would be able to deal with only half the present outward tonnage.

This consisted of coal and coke dust in bags to foundries in South Wales, Bedford, Bristol, Poole and Exeter.

Questioned by Mr. R. A. Webb, for the British Transport Commission, who objected, the applicant said that he was having to compete against rates offered by clearing houses who dealt with the c 8 remainder of Cumming's traffic as return loads.

His rate from Birmingham to South Wales was £1 16s. a ton, compared with the clearing-house scale of £1 9s, The figure he quoted to Bedford was £1 12s. 6d., and Poole and Exeter £3 3s. as against LI 5s. and £2 2s. respectively.

Mr. James commented that it was well known that hauliers operating outwards from Birmingham could not compete with clearing-house rates.

Mr. S. Barker, Bilston manager of Cumming, said that they supported the application because if empty running were eliminated they hoped for a better rate.

Asked by Mr. James what would be their attitude if only one vehicle was granted, Mr. Barker replied that his company did not want the applicant to do less work for them. A lower rate would not compensate for loss of use. If they had to make a choice, he would prefer to consult his principals.

Adjourning the application, Mr. James granted a short-term continuation licence until the resumed hearing.


comments powered by Disqus