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
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200 
LOW-LOADER BID BY BIG PLANT HIRE FIRM FAILS
Page 72
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TiE North of England's biggest earthmoving plant hire firm, Harry Hodges and Son Ltd., of Sheffield, was at Leeds last week refused an application for a new B licence for a 25-1--ton artic.
The conditions-plant and machinery and other abnormal loads as required-were amended by Mr. Richard Yorke, for Hodges, to: earthmoving plant and equipment, over 30 tons, to and from roadbuilding sites and repair depots.
Objectors were Pickfords, Elliott (Hauliers) Ltd., and Elliott Hauliers (Northern) Ltd., represented by Mr. J. W. Bosomworth; and Sunter Bros. Ltd., and Siddle C. Cook Ltd., represented by Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw.
Mr. Yorke said that Hodges' plant was used intensively and the service given by lowloader operators was unsatisfactory. Hodges had therefore purchased a low-loader of an improved type designed to reduce loading and unloading time substantially.
Mr. H. Hodges said the loader was not an uneconomical proposition but he felt it should be authorized for some work for hire or reward.
Mr. H. Andrews, Hodges plant manager, said more intensive use of the 65-ton-carryingcapacity low loader would bring savings which would be reflected in a lower rate charged to the customer. The low loader would be available for two days a week at the most.
He corrected an impression given earlier that the charge for the outfit would be 17 an hour. The plant hire charge was on an hourly basis, he said, but quotes for journeys by the outfit itself would be "by the clock".
Representatives of eight companies gave evidence in support.
Mr. Bosomworth and Mr. Wardlaw both submitted that a prima facie case had not been established. Mr. Bosomworth said there had been no evidence, no information on standing time and customer evidence, far from helping Hodges' case, had indicated that there could be serious abstraction from established operators.
Mr. Wardlaw said it was just another case of a plant hire operator wishing to encroach on hire or reward work although the outfit was operating economically.
Deputy LA Mr. Maxwell Gosnay said he was not satisfied a case had been made out, even for the amended conditions. Only one customer witness had come anywhere near giving the support necessary.