Small Haulier to Lose Licences ?
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ANOTHER haulier seems likely to -lose his livelihood because he has changed the nature of his business. , When, at Liverpool, last week, Mr. • G. F. Foster, 9, Harbord Street, Liverpool, applied for the renewal of his A licence for two 2i-ton vehicles to miry goods within 50 miles of the base it'd occasionally to the north-east coast, Sir William Hirt, North-Western • Deputy Licensing Authority, stated: "I have no alternative but to refuse the licence, in view of the lack of evidence."
Mr. J. P. Wilson, for Mr. Foster, requested an adjournment to bring evidence to show that the present-day operations were really only a continuation of previous activities, Although Sir William Hart promised to consider the matter further, he made no other announcement.
Mr. Foster was alleged to have broken an undertaking given some time ago to the railways, when they withdrew , their objection to his original application.
The applicant said that he and his family had been in the transport and forwarding businetS for four generations. Whereas previously he had been engaged mainly on local work, he was now employed for 90 per cent, of his time in transport to the north-east coast.
The change had been brought about by the action of a customer in buying vehicles. to do his own local work, but Mr. Foster still carried his goods to the north-east, obtaining' the business indirectly through another haulier. He continued his work for other companies, as before.
Sir William Hart remarked that the nature of the business had been changed considerably.