AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Decision Reserved in Alexander Rehearing

15th May 1964, Page 53
15th May 1964
Page 53
Page 53, 15th May 1964 — Decision Reserved in Alexander Rehearing
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?

r-,HARLES ALEXANDER AND 4.-• PARTNERS LTD., of Aberdeen, ippeared at Edinburgh last week after he Transport Tribunal had referred back heir 1963 application for an amended tormal user and a new A licence for 14 trtics on North British Rubber traffic in -Ireat Britain. In returning this case last

ru a r y, the Tribunal held that the Icottish L.A. had misdirected himself vhen he decided there was no case to .nswer.

The Tribunal ruled then that N.B.R. vere customers who desired the carriage if their goods and had selected Charles Uexander; if there were no other availble facilities it was a. case for a grant, ,ut there might well be alternative acilitics and it was for the objectors to trove that they could carry the traffic ither fully or in part.

Mr. W. F. Quin, Scottish Licensing Luthority, restricted the present hearing D these aspects; there was a clear responibility for the objectors to demonstrate at they had facilities and all other omments were superfluous. He reserved is decision.

British Railways gave details of their ill range of facilities and stated they ad carried urgent goods by passenger :rvices; they had not done any major mount of freight service transport but ad the services and capacity and were nxious to carry this traffic.

B.R.S. gave evidence of considerable .ork in 1962—and a definite decline in 963 when North British Rubber transIred to Alexander. They had vans of

suitable type specially for this work, but had had no requests from North British for the new services which that company had initiated with Alexander after scrapping a number of C hiring arrangements. But they did have requests from Alexander to operate as sub-contractors and had helped the new operator to handle the traffic which that operator had taken from them.

They had the capacity, it was contended, the vehicles of the right type, the experience and the willingness to carry the traffic. On the subject of rates, B.R„S. had worked as sub-contractors to Alexander, which indicated that their rates, lower than Alexander's, and their vehicles, must have been satisfactory, it was suggested.

Road operators, including Road Services Forth and Bell and Co. (Transport) Ltd., both gave evidence of capacity and readiness to handle the traffic involved. Bell were originally C hiring contractors to North British and lost five of the six vehicles involved in their contract when North British reorganized their transport.

In the summing up it was contended that Alexander were in definite breach of their 70-mile radius from Leith condition and should be penalized for that breach; that there was able evidence of available capacity which had not been invited to participate and that the major application for 14 new A licences, plus renaming of the normal user, rested on the evidence of one witness—a highly unsatisfactory position, it was said.

Tags

Organisations: Transport Tribunal
People: W. F. Quin
Locations: Edinburgh, L.A., Aberdeen

comments powered by Disqus