S hould Clearing House Become Haulier ?
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SHOULD a company, described by counsel for nine objectors as a clearing house, be granted licences to operate
vehicles? This question was argued before the Western Licensing Authority, at Bristol, on November 5-6. Decision was reserved.
Packham and Co., Ltd., applied for an A Licence for 10 vehicles (24 tons 3 cwt.), which included six vehicles (15 tons) to be acquired, and a B Licence for two vehicles (5 tons 11 cwt.).
It was stated that the existing A Defence Permits for four lorries had been obtained by purchasing the business of T. C. Binding and Sons, Ltd. (three vehicles) and the Yatton Haulage Co., Ltd. (one vehicle). Purchase of the Yatton concern had also yielded the two vehicles operated under a B Defence Permit. Six additional vehicles were required to meet an increased demand in the Clevedon district, five of the lorries to be tippers.
Mr. Leach, engineer and surveyor to Clevedon Urban District Council. said, in support of the application, that a £39,000 housing programme was to be carried out at Clevedon, as well as a road scheme, and that there was a shortage of vehicles. In cross-examination, however, he admitted that the council owned two vehicles, which were under repair. and that the housing programme had been sub-contracted to concerns which owned a number of vehicles and employed outside hauliers.
Mr. Rudge. manager of A. Packham and Co., Ltd., at Clevedon, admitted that the type of work which the company now sought to do had not been carried out by the previous operators.
The nine haulier objectors stated that they were specialists in tipping-vehicle• work and were working for some of the customers for whom the applicant required to carry. The objectors maintained that they could do any work.
Mr. Stockdale, for the objectors. further submitted that the Packham concern was not a pre-war operator. but had begun in 1945. The company had not operated vehicles of its own and was purely a clearing house. It was not entitled as an established haulage concern to apply for the renewal of an existing licence.
In Mr. Stockdale's submission, clearing houses should not be granted licences, because there was a danger of dual grants to sub-contractors.
Counsel argued that the applicant had materially changed the character of the business and that the vehicles were 20 per cent. unemployed.