AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

No C. and D. Van for Scottish Work

13th November 1959, Page 148
13th November 1959
Page 148
Page 148, 13th November 1959 — No C. and D. Van for Scottish Work
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?

QPERATION for subsidiary cornpanics did not absolve an applicant from meeting the full requirements of normal procedure, said Mr. W. F. Quin, Scottish Licensing Authority, when he refused an application by N.M.U. (1953), Ltd., at Glasgow last week.

The Munro appeal, he said, clearly stated the evidence required for additions to a fleet, or in application for an A licence for collection and delivery work in connection with trunk services, N.M.U. had not produced such evidence.

The company sought an A licence for a vehicle of 3 tons for collection and delivery work within 60 miles of base. Mr. P. Kenny, for N.M.U., said that the vehicle was required for work performed by the company as a subsidiary Rowntree and Co., Ltd., and the associates, Gray, Dunn, Ltd., and W. at M. Duncan, Ltd.

The applicants operated a tru delivery service from Birmingha London, Liverpool and York into t Glasgow area.

Periodic delays to the trunk vehicle a its difficulty in making multiple drops h encouraged N.M.U. to seek a supp mentary collection and delivery van. would undertake only existing work a would not abstract work from la ha uliers.

For the objectors, Mr. R. Macken claimed that the traffic from Birmingh and Liverpool was essentially competiti general work.