Granary Haulage Asked to Explain
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AFTER the West Midland Licensing Authority Mr. J. Else had ordered Granary Haulage Ltd., of Burton upon Trent, to produce certified figures showing the working of vehicles belonging to a company-acquired by them, he was told that a director of Granary's parent group believed that the group's transport manager, who had given evidence, may have created the wrong impression, and that the director himself wished to give evidence at the earliest possible occasion.
The application, for a new A licence for 42 vehicles (to replace B and Contract A licences held by the company), and which attracted opposition from 26 local operators, including British Railways, was adjourned; two days are to be set aside in February for it to be completed.
Mr. J. Foley Egginton, for Granary. recalled that in 1961 an application for five vehicles on A licence had been refused for several reasons, the main one of which was the fact that the applicant company was share controlled by two members of the group of companies for which it proposed to carry. "This no longer applies. You will receive evidence today that this company is an independent haulage company ", said Mr. Foley Egginton. Another ground for the 1961 refusal, he continued, was that the applicant company was not a public carrier in the spirit or sense of the 1960 Road Traffic Act. " My argument is that the company has become a public carrier, by reasons of the growth of its business Mr. Foley Egginton submitted. It had also been said, he added, that the needs of the group could be undertaken properly and efficiently under B licences, but the B licence held by the company had become unwieldy and other firms not in the group had sought the services of the applicants.
Giving evidence, Mr. D. J. M. Durbin, transport manager of the English Grains Group, produced figtires which showed that there had been substantial increase in carryings and, over a 10-month period in 1964, sub-contracting had reached no
less a figure than 174,697. Asked by Mr. Else if the company was experiencing any difficulty in dealing with the existing named customers on the B licence, Mr. Durbin said that this was not so, but these companies were expected to increase their business, and there were many new customers Who had asked for facilities. They had the gravest difficulty in disposing of certain consignments which other local hauliers were not interested in. "1 don't care what any haulier in this court says", he continued, "we are put across a barrel in that these have to he moved quickly." His company was morally hound to run special vehicles to move small consignments. he added, 1962 Inquiry
Mr. Else drew attention to evidence given by Mr. Durbin during an inquiry in 1962 when two A-licensed vehicles were acquired from T. P. Wootton under the provisions of Section 173(1)(c) of the 1960 Act. Then, Mr. Else pointed out, Mr. Durbin had stated that the intention was to do "the same work for the same customers as we are doing now ". Work undertaken by Wootton, he added, was 50 per cent for one named customer, and 50 per cent for clearing houses. "Now Mr. Else continued, "the traffic is 90 per cent beer. Has not someone let it be known to you that there is such a thing as normal user and statements of intention upon which licences are made?" At some stage, he said, either Mr. Durbin or Granary's traffic manager was going to have to explain why the statement had not been
Mr. N. Carless, for the independent objectors, suggested in cross-examination that Granary was determined to acqUire art A licence and establish itself as public hauliers. This was the reason why Wootton had been acquired—" to establish Granary's position further as alleged bona fide hauliers ". The application was no different from the one which had been refused.