AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

"Operational Figures Must Be Certified"

14th July 1961, Page 46
14th July 1961
Page 46
Page 46, 14th July 1961 — "Operational Figures Must Be Certified"
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?

nPERATIONAL figures which support

hauliers' applications but which are not certified by a chartered accountant, were strongly criticized by Mr. B. Webb, at Sheffield, last Tuesday. He was objecting on behalf of the British Transport Commission to a series of applications by Woodcock Transport (Chorley), Ltd., and their associated company Woodcock Transport (Rotherham), Ltd.

Of the four applications put before him the Yorkshire Deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. J. H. E. Randolph, granted two and adjourned two. Woodcock's were allowed to substitute an open A vehicle in place of a special A, and to increase the unladen weight of a Rotherham-based vehicle from 6 tons to Elf tons, to enable it to carry 40-ft. steel bars for McC-auls and Co. (Sheffield), Ltd.

They also asked to replace three vehicles at present on contract to McCauls by three open A-licensed units. A B application was also made. The managing director of both companies, Mr. S. Hackett, submitted operational figures in support of the contract A and B applications which were signed by the company's accountant. During cross examination, he told Mr. Webb that their accountant was not chartered and he could not answer questions regarding the figures.

"They do not give me sufficient information," continued Mr. Webb, "it is essential they should be certified." He then asked that the two latter applications should be adjourned to enable the position to be clarified. It was also pointed out that the application had been adjourned in May, 1961. because the figures were inadequate.

Mr. Randolph said that this was the last time, an adjournment would be granted and that at the next hearing, if things were not in order, the applications would be refused.


comments powered by Disqus