1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136 
CASEBOOK The Davis Bro!
Page 48
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
is ion Possible Implications
As reported last week, Mr. b. I. R. Muir, the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, after some prolonged cogitation, announced his decisions in the two Davis Bros. (Haulage) Ltd. cases. The Section 178 inquiry and the bid for 10 more artics could not logically be separated when Mr. Muir's decision came to be written; the blunt refusal of the A-variation bid and the suspension of eight Mies for a period of four mouths represent a pretty definite snub to Davis Bros. The grant, in chambers, of short-term A licences for 42 tankers, with licences running from October 1 this year to March 31, 1966, adds a piquant twist to the whole affair.
promised to review the position again in six months' time; meanwhile it is anyone's guess who will carry the traffic on oiler from Ker Indus Ltd., Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. and Carless Cape! and Leonard Ltd., and on what licence,
ft can hardly be doubted that the LA's decision in the A-variation bid was designed to hurt Davis Bros. If, as a consequence, embarrassment is caused to the supporting customer firms, this will be a regrettable by-product; equally likely, some other tanker operators may land some welcome windfall traffic. It's an ill wind. .-.
The removal of eight artics from the
or a period of four months may 3 be a harsh decision, but it must !d in the context of the site of rated by the Davis Group.
uir writes (in his decision on the on application) "There is no hat they (Davis companies) are ntegrated and operate from the fires with common customers vehicles are maintained as a " and then goes on to itemize e-up of the fleet, which totals .cies and 205 trailers. Looked ; light the punishment (if that is I) does not seem excessive. In vehicle days off for repair or .flee, it .could be looked upon as :tive provision for maintenance. operator is tempted from time
o omit a scheduled maintenance o satisfy urgent customer needs: suspensions now being imposed rt many areas clearly are designed nee hauliers that this is not a ropoSition either in the short or run.
be that the unkindest cut of all by Mr. Muir was in the paraterein he praises " the enterprise ty of the Davis family" in the I efforts to expand their business. on: "This success has, however, .incd in premises where facilities tenance.are inadequate and withI quite recently, sufficient regard lid to the need to maintain and trailers in a systematic way. 3und to conclude land here I from their record of convictions hibitions that the group has 1, 10 some extent at least. at the 7f more scrupulous competitors." .ither aspects deserve mention. iufacturing side of the industry 'elieved that Mr. Muir did not ibmissions made by Mr. M. H. Lipkin, on behalf of Davis Bros., ndards of manufacture had Led. Even if such deterioration . established, the LA writes, "I 1.for. the purpose of this inquiry tched much weight to it" He "The onus is clearly on the to maintain his vehicles in good order in accordance with manU
instructions and to replace parts if need should arise." s surely tantamountto saying particular plea was the reddest rrings, cond aspect refers to the cost funds of Section 178 inquiries. gh the industry in general may itself to he harried unmercifully aldom as regards obligatory of maintenance, the . fact hat. some operators contrive to of any serious trouble. (I am well aware of the difficulty and expense of so doing.) .
It is not altogether fanciful to surmise that operators facint Section 178 inquiries may one day be faced with the costs of the proceedings. Such inquiries, involving the attendance of Ministry of Transport examiners, often from considerable distances. are highly expensive operations to stage--and. I suspect, no less expensive to mount. Imagine the endless preliminary investigations involved in assembling the Ministry evidence! Any
government must be concerned with the cost aspect, and if no attempt is made to " reverse the charges" and saddle the hauliers concerned with the costs of the proceedings, the industry as a whole may be faced with higher licence fees.
Of course, a successful defence of allegations of defective maintenance provision could extinguish any question of costs, as in other proceedings. But the risk of failure might deter all but the most prosperous hauliers from defending themselves to the limit.