Instances of Abuse by Customer and Haulier and Possible Answers
Page 43
Page 44
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
to the Trend to Enter Haulage by the "Easy Way" are Discussed
By G. W.
Irwin
LIKE most of the other provisions of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, those for the issue of A contract licences were sound. Where a trader or manufacturer wished to have vehicles at his exclusive disposal, but had neither the means nor facilities to operate his own, it enabled him to go to a professional provider of transport for them. This was sound sense and from the customer's point of view it was in many ways more advantageous than diverting capital and other resources from his normal line of business.
However, the provisions relating to A contract licences have not always worked out as Parliament intended, and at times abuses have crept in.
In many cases it is not the trader Of manufacturer who has sought transport facilities, but the vehicle owner whois anxious to get additional vehicles on the road. It is he who has first approached the trader and urged or pestered him into giving him a contract so that he could apply for such a licence. Naturally he has had to offer an inducement, and this generally takes the form of rates well below those of the haulier who has done the work hitherto.
One brick manufacturer in the Peterborough district used to issue such contracts like handbills to all and sundry. . A-slip was attached which said the contract was issued solely for the purpose of enabling the haulier to obtain the grant of a licence and did not place any liability on the issuing company in respect of traffic or rates. Naturally this slip was carefully detached before the contract was submitted to the Licensing Authority.
"Nothing For You Today"
Having,entered into such a contract, possibly at agreed rates, the haulier would one day be told, "Sorry, old man, I'm afraid that there is nothing for you today." He would then point to other vehicles which were busily loading and ask, "What, about them?" And the answer? "They have offered to do the work below the rate in your contract. If you are prepared to come down we'll see what we can do." The poor haulier would then have the choice of standing his vehicle up, accepting the lower rate or working illegally outside the contract.
He dare not sue the manufacturer or trader for breach of contract, because it was at his own urgent request that the contract was given him, and if he tried this method it would be the last contract he would ever get from anyone. With instalments on his vehicle falling due, he had no real option but to knuckle under. He himself only got the job at a cut rate and now this rate has been cut still lower. He is faced with the prospect of working hard, wearing out the vehicle for which he has not yet paid, and having nothing to show for it all in the end.
Some traders and manufacturers, of course, have twoway traffic and it may be that a contract with one of these, at ordinary rates, might show the haulier a modest profit. But many have only one-way traffic, and they will not be prepared to pay more to the contract licence holder than they do to the ordinary Aor B-licensee who, in many cases, will be able to arrange back-loads of other traders' goods. In these circumstances the A contract licensee will rarely be in a position to charge sufficient to cover the cost of the round trip and he must sooner or later become insolvent, have his vehicle taken back by the finance house and lose all the instalments he has paid on it.
Faced with this position, however, and appreciating its cause, he often applies for an A licence, offering to surrender his A contract licence if it is granted. His application is, of course, opposed, though usually by all too few road operators in his district, and when the application comes to a public inquiry, he endeavours to show that there is a need for' his services because he is now carrying the goods.
He is, of course, supported by the customer, who may even, have put him up to it as he doesn't want to lose the benefit' of the cut rate. The customer's evidence is merely that he wishes to dispense with A contract operation, probably because he is unable to guarantee a reasonable minimum amount of work, and he wishes to revert to the use of ordinary A. or B-licence vehicles.
The reason for his support is not far to seek. Although there is little doubt that he was first induced to enter into a contract with the applicant on the basis of a cut rate, the latter finds he is running at a substantial loss. The customer is not prepared to raise the rate, but between them they believe that if the A contract licence can be changed for an open A licence, not only will the haulier be able to carry hack-loads and so turn his present loss into a profit, but he will be able to offer the customer a still lower rate.
In the absence of effective opposition, the Licensing Authority comes to the conclusion that the objectors have nothing to lose, as they are not carrying the traffic anyway, and the application is granted. In this, he is supported by a number of,Transport Tribunal decisions which are not particularly helpful to the established operator.
Unfortunately these tactics are all too often successful, to the detriment of the hauliers who were carrying the customer's goods satisfactorily and successfully before the A contract licensee came on the scene with his cut rates, and in this way it is often the customer, and not the Licensing Authority, who decides who shall hold a carrier's licence.
Normal Channel of Entry
In fact, so many applications of this kind have been successful that there is evidence that it is developing into a racket." It is becoming recognized as a normal channel of entry into haulage by a newcomer.
It is difficult to knowhow this trend is to be fought, especially without any assistance from the Transport Tribunal. True, Licensing Authorities have complete discretion to grant or refuse; but their decisions are subject to appeal. It might strengthen their hand if opposition from road operators were greater and more vigorous; but hauliers often fear to oppose the protege' of a local merchant in case this should result in a boycott of their own services. Add to that the usual apathy or even lack of
knowledge that the application has been made—because local operators do not take Applications and Decisions and it is not surprising that objections are so few.
One answer to the problem might be to prohibit the consideration of such an application. This could be strengthened by the omission of evidence concerning any traffic carried under the A contract licence, as no proof of need had to be submitted in order to obtain the grant. This, however, would mean amending legislation. An alternative might be that if the Authority were satisfied that the application ought to be granted, to defer the issue of the new licence until the expiry of the first year of the A contract licence.
Much of the foregoing will, of course, apply to C hire operation except that here there is not even a pretence of ' a guarantee of a reasonable amount of work by the customer and for this reason many traders prefer it to A contract operation--it absolves them of all liability in this connection.