Those Absent Witnesses
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE criticism of Shell-Mex and RP
Ltd. by the Metropolitan LA, Mr. D. I. R. Muir (" The Commercial Motor ", April 23), for failing to send a witness or a letter releasing a Contract-A arrangement with C. E. Dormer Ltd., may inspire other large firms to review their policy in this matter, although I doubt if many diredors will lose any sleep so long as hauliers appear to be "two a penny ".
At Bedford recently I was surprised to hear the Eastern LA, Mr. W. P. S. Ormond, read a letter from London Brick Co. handed in by a B licence aspiranta greengrocer, withal—anxious to try his hand as a road haulier.
Mr, E, C. Winter, the optimistic gentleman concerned, wanted a B licence to carry bricks for 75 miles. From his base near Shefford there are a number of 'large accessible brickyards with a voracious and seemingly unsatisfied demand for road haulage—at least, in the busier months.
Great Enterprise Mr. Winter, with commendable enterprise, wrote to the London Brick Company's office in Kingsway, Africa House, and received in reply a letter saying that whilst it was not the policy of the company to support applications of this nature "there is little doubt that if your application is successful we should be able to provide work for the vehicle, on a day-to-day basis, from the Stewartby brickyards".
Of course. Mr. Ormond refused the application because there was no prima facie ground for a grant. The story might have ended differently if the "London Briek Company had maintained in court that its regular hauliers invariably could not meet their transport needs. Why did they send a letter otherwise?