Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120


17th February 1939
Page 31
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?

AN application by Messrs. Thompson Bros., of New Mills, for an A licence for two vehicles, in continuation of an existing licence, was opposed by the railways at Manchester, last week, on the ground that new work undertaken by the applicants involved a new run and that the railway carryings for the customer concerned had decreased by 31 per cent. The traffic involved was paper from New Mills to London.

For the applicants, it was confirmed by a letter from the customer that this paper was quite a new production and more suitable for road than for rail transport. Evidence on behalf of the railway company was to the effect that the question of suitability was merely one of rate and that the railway rate had been reduced from 30s. to 27s. 4d. per ton without regaining the custom, because the road rate was 18s. to 20s. per ton. Local work must have been given up, it was submitted, for this long-distance traffic to be taken on.

After further submissions, Sir William Hart, North-Western Deputy Licensing Authority, said much had been given him to think about, and he deferred his decision.

Oki Yorks Panel Not To Continue.

Pis understood that a meeting of Yorkshire road-transport employers in Leeds, on Tuesday, decided against the proposal to continue, under a new name, the employers' panel of the old Yorkshire Area Joint Conciliation Board, now replaced by the new Yorkshire Area Board, set up under the Road Haulage Wages Act. The meeting was attended by large Yorkshire hauliers who financially supported the old panel under a contributions scheme.

High tribute was paid to the work of the old panel and of its secretary, Mr. Harry Clark, and regret was voiced that circumstances made it advisable not to recommend continuance. Two points made in the discussion were that, SO far as negotiations on wages and conditions are concerned, the old panel has been superseded by the new one, and that continuation of the old panel's other activities under another name would, in effect, amount to the formation of a new association. Such a step was deprecated, on the ground that the Industry should have fewer associations rather than mime.

Need for Extra Vehicle Not Proved.

AN application by a substantial haulage company to take over the licence of a sub-contractor was rejected by Dr. W. Dawson Sadler (West Midland Deputy Licensing Authority), at Birmingham, on Monday. The applicant was Edward Box and Co., Ltd., the headquarters of which are at Liverpool, but which has a subsidiary base in Birmingham, where it employs three vehicles in collection and delivery work, auxiliary to. its trunk services, It applied for an extra vehicle in the Birmingham area, and it was stated by Mr. Letts, who presented the appli

cation, that if the additional vehicle were granted, the licence now held by a sub-contractor, Mr. Bishop, formerly of Oswestry, who had been working for the company for six months, would be surrendered. • • Objections were lodged, by the railway. companies and by the Premier Transport Co., Ltd., of Birmingham, whose representatives conducted crossexaminations, in the course of which it was revealed that there had been complete change of business—both 'as to the nature of traffic, • and as to districts served—by the sub-contractor.

In dismissing the application, Dr. Sadler said he was not disposed to attach great importance to a change of business, but the question he had to decide was whether it had been established that it was necessary that applicant should have the Use'of the vehicle: He said the necessity had not been proved. SUCCESSFUL APPEAL AGAINST RAIL APPLICATION.

X jIGOROUS and prolonged conV troversy arose, in the Appeal Tribunal recently, as to what is and what is not collection and delivery service. The occasion was the hearing of an eight-fold appeal by hauliers, against the grant of an extra road vehicle (of 4 tons 5 cwt.) to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co. in the East Midland Area, under variation of an A licence. The hauliers were Mr. Lawrence Daniel Brown, • Hutchby and Collumbell, Ltd., Messrs. Bircher Bros., Mr.. Percy William Clarke, and Mr. John William Ward (t/a Messrs. Ward Bros.), all of Leicester.

A decision was given, on Tuesday, against the railway company with costs in favour of the appellant.

The case will be reported more fully in a later isSue of The Commercial MOtal.

comments powered by Disqus