1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176 
Inter City Bids Fail: Support Lacking
Page 64
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
(-IF three applications by Inter-City
Transport and Trading Co. Ltd. heard during a two-day sitting at Edinburgh this week, one was withdrawn and two were rejected by the Licensing Authority, Mr. W. F. Quin.
Inter-City applied for A-licence variations to add two artics of 13f tons based in Edinburgh, four artics of 35+ tons based in Curnbernauld and a new B licence for one vehicle of 3+ tons and one artic of 4+ tons for collection and delivery work within 10 miles of Cumbernauld.
British Railways, British Road Services and a number of hauliers objected. Mr. W. Sharp, secretary of Inter-City, gave evidence that there had been a growing trade in whisky for home and export work, involving the transit of high-value loads under insurance cover. Sub-contractors had been used extensively, but some customers objected. to these where whisky was concerned.
Mr. Sharp said the company operated 74 vehicles on A licence in Scotland and also organized a network of sub-contractors. Turnover in 1962 was £473,922, earned by their own vehicles, giving an
average of some £6,000 per vehicle. The company could not offer a list of customers, or of earnings from those customers, and there were no major customer witnesses for the whisky traffic.
No proof of damage or loss through the use of sub-contractors could he offered by Mr. Sharp and the Authority reminded him that if he could show that sub-contractors were unsatisfactory his case would be very much improved. Mr. Sharp agreed that B.R.S. had not been asked for hire at any time and Mr. Quin said: " B.R.S. are part of the transport facilities in the area and I have to consider whether there is any excess of transport."
Mr. J. B. T. Loudon, for British Road Services, analysed the Edinburgh figures and demonstrated discrepancies. Mr. Quin agreed that these figures were worthless for the purpose involved. InterCity withdrew the Edinburgh A application and the Authority ruled there was r,o ease to answer in respect of the Cumbernauld A application. He also rejected the B collection-and-delivery application in the absence of supporting witnesses.