AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

The tipper rates battle is hotting up

17th June 1966, Page 59
17th June 1966
Page 59
Page 59, 17th June 1966 — The tipper rates battle is hotting up
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?

A CONTRACT A renewal and three new Contract A bids were refused by the Western Licensing Authority last week. The three new bids were heavily opposed and the LA's decision must have gladdened the hearts of the objectors. The circumstances were so unusual, and the cases so relevant to the clamant demand of many tipper operators for realistic rates to be paid for quarry work, that I suspect there will be wide repercussions.

Mr. J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon has yet to give his decision in the strongly opposed Contract A renewal bid of Stoke St. Michael Transport Ltd. (C OMMERCIALMOTOR, April 1) and I understand that the Contract A bid of Mr. Brian Roper, which was adjourned at Bristol on February 28 for the parties to negotiate after admitted irregularities by the applicant (COMMERCIAL MOTOR, March 4), is also outstanding.

At last week's hearing at Bristol, D. J. Cox Ltd., of East Huntspill, who were acquiring the business of D. J. Cox, sought a new B licence for three vehicles conditioned, inter cilia, to carry materials for a number of quarries, and a new Contract A licence for quarry work for Tarmac Roadstone Ltd. These applications were not opposed; the new applications necessary on company formation very seldom are. Three other applicants, J. L. Wells, of Cheddar; K. G. Weaver, of Ashcott and M. B. Fowler, of Cheddar. all sought new Contract A licences to carry goods of Tarmac Roadstone Ltd. Mr. H. Coles, manager of Tarmac Roadstone Ltd., supported the bids.

In the course of the inquiry it was apparent that the LA was not satisfied with the rates schedule attached to the Contract A application forms. It transpired that payments made to quarry hauliers operating from the Tarmac quarry did not coincide with the scheduled figures. Up to 4s. per ton, the objectors alleged, was knocked off by the quarry to enable them to compete successfully for council contracts.

When this was disputed, a typical journey o Thatcham was mentioned, where the scheduled rate for the 164-mile round trip was 23s. 8d. per ton. Mr. Coles insisted he vas paying this sum, but when an operator aresent left the court to check by telephone le reported that only 20s. 7d. per ton was )aid for the Thatcham movement.

At Bristol. Mr. Tom Corpe represented he objectors to the three Contract A bids tnd also D. J. Cox Ltd., whose apparently nnocuous application for new licences were mopposed. Mr. Corpe said that for the first ime in his life he would have to ask the LA

o refuse the renewal of the Contract A cence sought by D. J. Cox Ltd.. because Is clients alleged that they had incurred a )ss of £400 working for Tarmac last year. I understand that Mr. Samuel-Gibbon xpressed himself very forcibly indeed at the evelation that there were exceptions to a

rates schedule supporting Contract A licence applications. He said he had no intention of granting licences based on false particulars.

When he learned of the alleged loss of £400 suffered by D. J. Cox last year, he asked the applicant: "Why go on?" Mr. Cox said he had incurred heavy capital costs and he felt he would lose less by working at poor rates than he would if he stood up his lorry. The LA decided to adjourn this application and proceed with the other three applications. Mr. Corpe was granted a locus to cross-examine Mr. Cox on behalf of the objectors.

In the event, all the Contract A bids for work from the Tarmac Cheddar quarry were refused.


comments powered by Disqus